Vol. 69 No. 1 Spring 1974

Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical In- quiry Marvin Laurence Winitsky Frederick Douglass: Maryland Slave to Religious Liberal William L. Van Deburg The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism VV. Harrison Daniel Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency: James McHenry to Bishop John Carroll, May 16, 1800 John B. Boles

Roger Brooke Taney

A QUARTERLY PUBLISHED BY THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY BOARD OF EDITORS JEAN BAKER Goucher College MAXWELL BLOOMFIELD Catholic University of America RHODA M. DORSEY Chairman, Goucher College JACK P. GREENE Johns Hopkins University AUBREY C. LAND University of Georgia BENJAMIN QUARLES Morgan State College MORRIS L. RADOFF Maryland State Archivist WALTER RUNDELL, JR. University of Maryland A. RUSSELL SLAGLE Baltimore RICHARD WALSH Georgetown University

FORMER EDITORS WILLIAM HAND BROWNE 1906 1909 LOUIS H. DIELMAN 1910 1937 JAMES W. FOSTER 1938 1949, 1950-1951 HARRY AMMON 1950 FRED SHELLEY 1951 1955 FRANCIS C. HABER 1955 58 RICHARD WALSH 1958 1967

RICHARD R. DUNCAN, Editor JOHN B. BOLES, Book Review Editor RALPH D. NURNBERGER. Assistant Editor MARY K. MEYER, Genealogical Editor EUGENIA CALVERT HOLLAND and LOIS B. McCAULEY, Graphics Staff

Director P. WILLIAM FILBY

Published quarterly by the Maryland Historical Society, 201 W. Monument Street, Baltimore, Md. Second-Class postage paid at Baltimore, Md.

Composed and Printed at Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland 21202. © 1974, Maryland Historical Society K^ft^ ^^ i C-. 7i

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

PUBLISHED BY THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

VOLUME LXIX

BALTIMORE 1974 CONTENTS OF VOLUME LXIX

CONTRIBUTORS opp. 1, opp. 123, opp. 243, opp. 341 ROGER B. TANEY: HISTORIOGRAPHICAL INQUIRY. Marvin Laurence Winitsky 1 FREDERICK DOUGLASS: MARYLAND SLAVE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERAL. William L. Van Deburg 27 THE EFFECTS OF THE CIVIL WAR ON SOUTHERN PROTESTANTISM. W. Harrison Daniel 44 POLITICS, INTRIGUE, AND THE PRESIDENCY: JAMES MCHENRY TO BISHOP CAR- ROLL, MAY 16, 1800. ]ohn B. Boles 64 NOTES ON MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS 86 A DESCRIPTION OF THE VERTICAL FILE. Richard f. Cox 86 ACCESSIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF MAN- USCRIPT COLLECTIONS OF THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN AUGUST, 1968, X 90 GENEALOGICA MARYLANDIA 93, 323, 418 CAPTAIN JOHN FULFORD'S COMPANY, FEBRUARY 13, 1776, To MAY 21, 1777. Edited by Mary K. Meyer 93 REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 98, 228, 327, 426 BOOK NOTES 116, 338, 443 NOTES AND QUERIES 120, 447 THE ST, MARY'S CITY COMMISSION 123 "THE METROPOLIS OF MARYLAND": A COMMENT ON TOWN DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TOBACCO COAST. Lois Green Can 124 ST. JOHN'S: ARCHAEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. Garry Wheeler Stone. 146 OPPORTUNITY AND INEQUALITY: THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ON THE LOWER WESTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND, 1638-1705. Russell R. Menard, P. M. G. Harris, Lois Green Carr 169 THE "VIRGINIA HOUSE" IN MARYLAND. Gary Carson 185 A TENANT FARMER'S TABLEWARE: NINETEENTH-CENTURY CERAMICS FROM TABB'S PURCHASE. George L. Miller 197 DEATH IN THE CHESAPEAKE: TWO LIFE TABLES FOR MEN IN EARLY COLONIAL MARYLAND. Lorena S. Walsh and Russell R. Menard 211 IN MEMORIAM: GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE between 241-243 HAROLD RANDALL MANAKEE, 1908-1974. Harry Bard between 241-243 BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE: THE CAREER OF ALEXANDER BROWN AFTER THE WAR OF 1812. Gary L. Browne 243 A GLIMPSE OF BALTIMORE SOCIETY IN 1827: LETTERS BY HENRY D. GILPIN. Ralph D. Gray and Gerald E. Hartdagen 256

THOMAS STONE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF THE MARYLAND COUNCIL OF SAFETY, 1776. ]ean H. Vivian 271 MT. VERNON PLACE AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY: A VIGNETTE OF THE GARRETT FAMILY. Katharine B. Dehler 279 SIDELIGHTS 293, 398 THE LOST WORLD OF DANIEL BOORSTIN. Rodney M. Sievers 293 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ARTICLES ON MARYLAND HISTORY IN OTHER JOURNALS. Dorothy M. Brown and Richard R. Duncan 300 NOTES ON MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS: TWO MARYLANDERS IN THE EARLY NAVY: THE HAMBLETON FAMILY PAPERS, Ms. 2021, by Richard J. Cox 317 ACCESSIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF MANU- SCRIPT COLLECTIONS OF THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN AUGUST 1968, XI 321 DEATH RECORDS FROM RICHARD MARKLAND'S COPY BOOK. Mary K. Meyer 323 GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE, 1877-1974. Samuel Hopkins between 340-341 A PORTRAIT OF BALTIMORE IN 1800: ECONOMIC AND OCCUPATIONAL PATTERNS IN AN EARLY AMERICAN CITY. Richard M. Bernard 341 ELLEN SPENCER MUSSEY AND THE WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW. Catherine M. Rottier 361 BENEFIT OF CLERGY IN COLONIAL MARYLAND. Peter G. Yackel 383 A MARYLANDER IN AFRICA: THE LETTERS OF HENRY HANNON. W. Wayne Smith 398 THE GREAT BALTIMORE DELUGE OF 1817. Ralph D. Nurnberger 405 NOTES ON MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS: THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT'S DIVISION OF THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Richard f. Cox 409 SOMERSET PARISH RECORDS. Robert Barnes 418 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Roger Brooke Taney Cover, Spring Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress 3 Home of Roger B. Taney, Bentz Street, Frederick, Maryland. Maryland Historical Society 5 John Marshall. Library of Congress 7 Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress 10 John Bach McMaster. Library of Congress 13 Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society 15 Albert Beveridge. Library of Congress 18 Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress 21 Walker Lewis. Maryland Historical Society 23 Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society 25 Frederick Douglass. Library of Congress 28 Wendell Phillips. Library of Congress 31 John Brown. Library of Congress 33 Henry Ward Beecher. Library of Congress 35 Frederick Douglass. Library of Congress 37 Theodore Parker. Library of Congress 39 Robert G. Ingersoll. Library of Congress 41 William Lloyd Garrison. Library of Congress 42 Rev. L. F. Drake preaching at Camp Dick Robinson, Kentucky, 1864. Library of Congress 47 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress 51 Cathedral of St. John, Charleston. Library of Congress 53 Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress 56 Ruins of the Circular Church, Charleston. Library of Congress 59 Headquarters, United States Christian Commission, Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress 62 James McHenry. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society 66 Thomas Jefferson. Maryland Historical Society 67 John Carroll. Maryland Historical Society 70 Charles Cotesworth Pindcney. Maryland Historical Society 73 Alexander Hamilton. Maryland Historical Society 75 George Washington. Maryland Historical Society 77 Aaron Burr. By Gilbert Stuart. From Dictionary of American Portraits 79 Robert Goodloe Harper. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society 81 John Jay. By Gilbert Stuart. From Dictionary of American Portraits 83 Archbishop Samuel Eccleston. Maryland Historical Society 87 Charles Joseph Bonaparte. Maryland Historical Society 89 Enlistment Notice. Library of Congress 94 St. Mary's City: The Village Crossroads, 1690's. Detail from a conjectural drawing Cover, Summer The St. Mary's Townlands, 1640-47. Map 1: The tract map is based on original surveys superimposed on a recent topographical map created from aerial sur- veys. Dates of structures reflect the earliest mention in the records 127 The Village 1678. Map 2: 134 Photograph 1: The reconstructed State House of 1676 stands on what was Thomas Notley's lot on Aidermanbury Street 137 Photograph 2: This gun called a saker was found on the river below Church Point in 1824 141 Plate 1A: The house during excavation, looking south 150 Plate IB: The superimposed chimneys after removal of the construction and pre- construction levels (except for a small control strip on the right) 151 Plate II: Excavator uncovering the line of nails of a ball joist 154 St. John's circa 1640 156 St. Mary's Townlands, 1667 159 St. John's circa 1670. Preliminary Interpretation 161 Plate III; Architectural and furniture fragments: hinges, keys, and a brass escutch- eon plate. Items are photographed against a one-inch square grid 162 Plate IV: St. John's in the late seventeenth century 164 Plate V: Archaeological aides, identifiable finds 165 Plate VI: St. John's small objects that fell through cracks in the floor or were lost in the yard 167 Figure I: Mean and Median Total Estate Value on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705 172 Figure II: Inventories and Taxables on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1658-1705 175 Figure III: Household Inventories and Expected Deaths of Heads of Households on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1658-1705 177 Figure IV: Age Adjusted Mean Total Estate Value on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1658-1705 179 Figure 1: Holly Hill, ground plan 187 Figure 2: Holly Hill axial section (AA1) facing south. The drawing shows all visible fragments of the earliest house and its first enlargement 188 Figure 3: Holly Hill, exploded view of Period I construction at SE corner. The roof clapboards and the eaves board are restored in the drawing to show the original function of the nailing blocks. Not seen are the sprockets that carried the splayed lower edge of the roof over the ends of the extended tie beams . . 189 Figure 4: Sarum, perspective view of seventeenth-century timber frame from SE corner 190 Figure 5: Sarum, axial section facing north. The oldest part of the house is cov- ered by the clapboarded roof, in which are still visible traces of two original dormers and the roof to a porch tower 193 The excavated house. In the foreground is the east chimney of Roger Tolle's dwell- ing, beyond which is the cellar added by Moses Tabbs 198 Graduate Student recovering ceramics from the ramp fill 199 Plate II: Drawings by Gretchen Nolley 203 Plate III 204 Plate IV: 207 Plate V 208 Christmas Day I860 Cover, Winter George L. Radcliffe, 1877-1974 between 340-341 Atheneaum. Maryland Historical Society opp. 341 Plan of the Town of Baltimore. A. Folie. 1792. Maryland Historical Society 343 Warner and Hanna's Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. Maryland Historical Society 346 Warner and Hanna's Map with Federal Tax Districts (1798) and City Wards (1797). City Wards indicated by broken numerals. Tax Districts by solid figure 347 First Court House, 1768-1809. From Clayton Coleman Hall's Baltimore: Its History and People 349 HALL OF RECORDS LIBRARY

MARYLANDWWWW^PTTS^^W^^Tfl ND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737 1832 DONORS TO THE SOCIETY—1973 GIFTS OF MONEY OR SECURITIES

$10,000 and over Maryland Genealogical Society Mrs. Anne B. Middendorf Jacob and Annita France Foundation John M. Nelson, Jr. Foundation Robert G. and Anne M. Merrick Foundation, Inc. Miss Mary Ringgold Trippe Middendorf Foundation

55,000 and over $200 and over William Randolph Hearst Foundation Mrs. Esther B. Anderton Donation for production of sets of full-color Mr. and Mrs. William K. Cogswell filmstrip "Maritime Baltimore for Maryland Mrs. Laurence Hall Fowler State Chamber of Commerce',•' Miss Marguerite F. Klein Mr. and Mrs. Lester S. Levy $3,000 and over Mr. and Mrs. George M. Radcliffe Mr. and Mrs. Jacques T. Schlenger Mrs. Allen W. Dulles Society of the Cincinnati of Maryland Mr. John H. Funkey Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Maryland Mr. and Mrs. Frederick L. Wehr 52,000 and over

Mr. and Mrs. Leonard C. Crewe, Jr. Corporate Donors Allen Dickey Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Gerson Gutman Eisenberg Alban Tractor Company American Smelting & Refining Co. 5/,000 and over Arthur Andersen & Co. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Mrs. Harry Clark Boden. IV The Barton-Gillet Company Commander and Mrs. M. V. Brewington The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com- Dr. Edward C. Carter pany of Maryland Mr. and Mrs. P. William Filby Chesapeake Cadillac Co. Mr and Mrs. D. Luke Hopkins Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Hopkins First Maryland Foundation, Inc. Elizabeth S. Hunting Legacy J. J. Haines & Co., Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Charles L. Marburg Koppers Company, Inc. Mr. John P. Paca Martin Marietta Corporation Mr. and Mrs. C. William Schneidereith. Sr. Maryland Cup Corporation Trustees, The Stiles E. Tuttle Trust Maryland National Foundation Monumental Corporation $500 and over PPG Industries Foundation, Inc. Estate of Thomas F. Cadwalader T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. Dr. and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Chatard Talbot T. Speer Foundation, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Edwin B. Filbert Suburban Trust Company Mr. and Mrs. Bryden B. Hyde Trustees Flynn & Emrich Foundation Mr. and Mrs. H. H. Walker Lewis United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Mr. and Mrs. John L. McShane Waverly Press, Inc. Vol. 69 No. 1 MARYLAND Spring 1974 HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

Marvin Laurence Winitsky Roger B. Taney. A Hisloriographical Inquiry 1 William L. Van Deburg Frederick Douglass: Maryland Slave to Religious Liberal 27 W. Harrison Daniel The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism 44 John B. Boles Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency: James McHenry to Bishop John Carroll, May 16, 1800 64

Notes on Maryland Historical Society Richard J. Cox A Description of the Vertical File 86 Accessions of the Manuscript Division since the Publica- tion of Manuscript Collections of the Maryland His- torical Society 90

Genealogica Marylandia Mary K. Meyer, editor Captain John Fulford's Company: February 13, 1776 to May 21, 1777 93

Reviews of Recent Books

Lovejoy, The Glorious Revolution in America, by Stephen Saunders Webb • Reps, Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland, by Edward C. Papenfuse • Main, Political Parties before the Constitution, by Robert E. Shalhope • Renzulli, Maryland: The Federalist Years, by Joseph W. Cox • Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction. Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian, by Robert E. Bieder • James, Anne Royall's U.S.A., by Fred M. Rivers • Blassingame, The Slave Community: Planta- tion Life in the Antebellum South, by Thomas P. Govan • Perry, Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought, by Bertram Wyatt-Brown • Meier, ed.. Memoirs of a Swiss Officer in the American Civil War, by Thomas L. Connelly • Erickson, Invisible Immi- grants: The Adaptation of English and Scottish Immigrants in Nineteenth- Century America, by Rudolph J. Vecoli • Landsberg, John Dos Passos' Path to USA: A Politcal Biography, 1912-1936, by Gerald W. Johnson • Quimby, ed., Ceramics in America, by Richard J. Cox • Sellers and Slot- ten, comp.. Archives and Manuscript Collections of Dickinson College: A Guide, by Nancy G. Boles • Forbush, A History of Baltimore Yearly Meet- ing of Friends, by Kenneth L. Carroll • Eason, History of the Town of Glen Burnie, by Mark Norton Schatz. 98

Book Notes 116 Notes and Queries 120 Officers and Members of Committees of the

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Elected at the Annual Meeting, February 11, 1974*

President Chairman of the Council

SAMUEL HOPKINS (1977) GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE

Vice-Presidents Recording Secretary

LEONARD C. CREWE, JR. (1976) S. VANNORT CHAPMAN (1976) ROBERT L. WEINBERG (1977) MRS. W. WALLACE SYMINGTON, JR. For Treasurer (1978) JOHN G. EVANS

Trustees of the Athenaeum

WILLIAM K. COGSWELL, Chairman (1977)

MISS MARTHA BOKHL FRANCIS H. JENCKS

ARTHUR M. GOMPF ABBOTT L. PENNTMAN, JR.

GEORGE M. RADCLIFFE

Committee on the Gallery

WILLIAM V. ELDER, III, Chairman (1978)

J. R. HERBERT BOONE DR. ROBERT H. MCCAULEY, JR.

BRYDEN BORDILY HYDE MRS. ALLAN J. MEAD

MRS. HAROLD DUANE JACOBS J. JEFFERSON MILLER, II

H. IRVINE KEYSER, 2ND MISS ELISABETH C. G. PACKARD

R. MCGILL MACKALL RICHARD H. RANDALL, JR.

CHARLES L. MARBURG RICHARD C. RIGGS

ARNOLD ROTHSCHILD

* Dates shown after certain officers'" and committee chairmen's names indicate ex- piration of term. Committee on the Library

CURTIS CARROLL DAVIS, Chairman (1977)

ROBERT W. BLACK JOHN A. PENTZ

RALPH L. DEGROFF JACQUES T. SCHLENGER

ARTHUR J. GUTMAN C WILLIAM SCHNEIDEREITH, SR.

EDGAR G. HEYL A. RUSSELL SLAGLE

LESTER S. LEVY DR. HUNTINGTON WILLIAMS

Committee on Finance

ROBERT G. MERRICK, Chairman TRUMAN T. SEMANS, Vice Chairman BENJAMIN H. GRISWOLD, 111 JOHN E. MOTZ ROGER BROOKE HOPKINS THOMAS S. NICHOLS

Committee on Publications

C. A. PORTER HOPKINS, Chairman (1978)

JOHN B. BOLES H. H. WALKER LEWIS JAMES H. BREADY EDWARD C. PAPENFUSE DR. FERDINAND E. CHATARD BENJAMIN QUARLES JACK PHILIP GREENE MORRIS L. RADOFF CHESTER W. GREGORY WALTER RUNDELL, JR. WILBUR H. HUNTER, JR. ARTHUR W. SHERWOOD

FRANCIS H. JENCKS DR. THOMAS B. TURNER MRS. ALEXANDRA LEE LEVIN CHARLES L. WAGANDT, 2ND

Committee on Membership

GEORGE M. RADCLIEFE, Chairman (1977)

THOMAS M. ANDERSON, JR. JOHN W. NOBLE, JR. HOWARD BAETJER, II JOHN P. PACA, JR. RIGNAL W. BALDWIN DR. THOMAS G. PULLEN, JR. GARY BLACK ORLANDO V. RIDOUT, IV LOUIS G. HECHT W. CAMERON SLACK GEORGE D. HUBBARD MRS. W. WALLACE SYMINGTON, JR. W. BOULTON KELLY,, JR. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS Committee on Education MRS. BRYDEN BORDLEY HYDE, Chairman (1977) DR. DAVID W. ZIMMERMAN, Vice Chairman LUDLOW H. BALDWIN WILBUR H. HUNTER, JR. DR. HARRY BARD MRS. FRANCIS SCOTT KEY MRS. PHILIP BRISCOE DR. THOMAS G. PULLEN, JR. MRS. RICHARD H. CROMWELL, JR. DR. JAMES A. SENSENBAUGH GERSON G. EISENBERG MISS NETTIE B. TAYLOR C. A. PORTER HOPKINS ROBERT L. WEINBERG

Committee on the Maritime Collection JOHN L. MCSHANE, Chairman (1978) J. DAWSON REEDER, Vice Chairman LEWIS A. BECK, JR. E. RALPH HOSTETTER HUGH BENET, JR. CHARLES A. MASSON MRS. HELEN DELICH BENTLEY WILLIAM B. MATTHEWS, JR. RANDOLPH W. CHALFANT ROBERT E. MICHEL S. VANNORT CHAPMAN ROLFE POTTBERG DR. FERDINAND E. CHATARD CHARLES E. SCARLETT, JR. J. FREDERICK DOUTY, 111 J. HENRY SCHILPP R. HAMMOND GIBSON WILLIAM C. STEUART CHARLES Mel. HARRIS L. BYRNE WATERMAN WILLIAM E. HILL FREDERICK L. WEHR JOHN A. WORTHINGTON

Committee on Addresses LESTER S. LEVY, Chairman (1975) MRS. LOUIS AZRAEL JOHN POE TYLER EDGAR G. HEYL G. LUTHER WASHINGTON

Committee on Genealogy and Heraldry A. RUSSELL SLAGLE, Chairman (1977) ROBERT W. BARNES HENRY M. KELLY MRS. HARRY CLARK BODEN, IV J. SEEGER KERNS MISS ANNA M. CARTLIDGE JON HARLAN LIVEZEY MRS. NORRIS HARRIS DR. MICHAEL TEPPER BRYDEN BORDLEY HYDE DR. JOHN WALTON GEORGE B. WILSON Women's Committee

MRS. ALLAN J. MEAD, Chairman (1977) MRS. RICHARD H. CROMWELL, JR., Vice Chairman MRS. JOSEPH D. BECKLEY MRS. BRYDEN B. HYDE MRS. MARCUS M. BERNSTEIN, JR. MISS JULIA PECHIN INGLE MISS MARTHA BOKEL MRS. WILLIAM G. KOUWENHOVEN MRS. CALHOUN BOND MRS. HENRY F. LE BRUN MRS. WILLIAM BOUCHER, III MRS. NICHOLAS B. MERRYMAN OE J MRS. KENNETH A. BOURNE MRS. CLARENCE D. MILES MRS. WALTER B. BUCK MRS. B. FRANK NEWCOMER MRS. CURTIS CARROLL DAVIS MISS ELISABETH C. G. PACKARD MRS. EDWARD K. DUNN MRS. RICHARD C. RIGGS MRS. SWEPSON EARLE MRS. JOHN W. SAUSE, JR. MRS. GERSON G. EISENBERG MRS, J. NICHOLAS SHRIVER, JR. MRS. W. T. DIXON GIBBS MRS. PAUL P. SWETT, JR. MISS PRISCILLA D. HOWARD MRS. W. WALLACE SYMINGTON, JR. MISS MARY GORDON THOM

P. WILLIAM FILBY, Director

MRS. ROMAINE S. SOMERVILLE, Assistant Director

The Earl of Avon, Honorary Member CONTRIBUTORS

John B. Boles, Associate Professor of History at Towson State College, received his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in 1969. In 1972 he published The Great Re- vival, 1787-1805: The Origins of the Southern Evangelical Mind and in 1973 edited America: The Middle Period. Essays in Honor of Bernard Mayo. He also edited for microfilm publication the Papers of William Wirt (1971) and the Papers of John Pendleton Kennedy (1972). He has published articles in the Southern Humanities Review, Georgia Historical Quarterly, Journal of Popular Culture, and the Virginia Baptist Register. W. Harrison Daniel is Professor of History and Chairman of his Department at the University of Richmond. He has published numerous articles on religious history in such journals as the Journal of Southern History, Civil War History, the Virginia Baptist Register, North Carolina Historical Review, and the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. His article, "Southern Baptists and Education, 1865-1900: A Case Study," appeared in the Fall 1969 issue of this Magazine. William L. Van Deburg is an Assistant Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Professor Van Deburg holds a doctor's degree from Michigan State University. He has previously published in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society and Georgia Historical Quarterly, while a forthcoming article, "Afro-American Studies: A Question of Preservation," will be published in the spring issue of the Negro History Bulletin. Marvin Laurence Winitsky holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a Ph.D. degree from the California State University at Los Angeles where he is currently an Acting As- sistant Professor in the American Studies Department. MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE Vo1 69 A Quarterly No.- 1 Spring 1974

Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry

MARVIN LAURENCE WINITSKY

AN THE FACE of a barrage of Northern invective leveled against Roger Taney's Z)m/.Sco//decision,1 Samuel Nott, a Congregationalist minister from Massachusetts, published an approving pamphlet. When he sent a copy to Taney, the Chief Justice responded with a long letter and the hope that Nott's "fair" review would "correct some of the misrepresentations which have so industriously been made... by many ... who must have known better." Taney concluded that he would not violate judicial propriety by entering into controversy with slanderers, and that the "opinion must be left to speak for itself."2 His naive hope proved vain, however. No judicial opinion "speaks for itself," and most historians as late as the first quarter of the twentieth century accepted the North's indictment of Taney as the major, if not the sole interpretive key to the man's judicial career. The Unjust Judge, an anonymous sixty-six-page pamphlet published in 1865, a year after Taney's death, typified initial Northern nationalist appraisals. It compared Taney with George Jeffreys, the English "hanging judge" of Monmouth's Rebellion, and deprecated him as a cloying tool of Andrew Jackson, supposedly "incapable of exhibiting even a caricature of personal or political independence," a judge whose opinions were "too trite to be quoted and too dull to be read. As a man, a Christian, and a jurist... he falls below the lowest standard of humanity, religion, and law.

1 Dred Scolt v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 (1857). 2 Taney to Nott, Aug. 19, 1857, Proceedings, Massachusetts Historical Society, XII (1873), pp. 445 447.

1 2 Maryland Historical Magazine recognized among civilized men," The displeased author then went on to overkill: "As a jurist, or, more strictly speaking, as a Judge in which character he will be most remembered, he was, next to Pontius Pilate, perhaps the worst that ever occupied the seat of judgment among men."3 Replying to this and similar tirades, Samuel Tyler, a Baltimore attorney and Taney's friend, brought out a favorable biography in 1872.4 It contained as much as Taney had compiled of his autobiography, dozens of letters Taney had written to important contemporaries, and summaries of selected judicial opinions. But, since the book had only an apologetic purpose and the correspondence between Taney and Andrew Jackson had not become available and because Taney, destroying most of those he received, made no copies of his own letters, the work's historical value fell accordingly. For example, Tyler admitted that his purpose was "to vindicate one who had been . . . hated. . . ."5 In pursuing this aim, he called the question in Charles River Bridge6 "just suited to the statesmanly judicial mind of the Chief Justice"7 and held that the opinion, "enforced with the most convincing reasoning, founded on sound legal doctrine and expressed in the most felicitous diction, was most auspicious for the country," since it gave the states the freedom to advance their internal improvements.8 Tyler even raised a general apology to Dred Scott.9 Characterizing the opinion and supplement as "the most comprehensive and best reasoned . . . ever pronounced by any tribunal,"10 he, claiming slavery to be "the one great educational institution by which . . . the lowest classes of people . . . have been raised up from barbarism to a degree of intelligence and self-control. ..," went well beyond Taney's opinion in rationalizing one of the practical consequences of Dred Scott.11 Although later nineteenth century historians made some stabs at fairness, their faith in Northern honor and Southern iniquity both preceding and during the Civil War never faltered, thus rendering them incapable of judging impartially actions seemingly sympathetic to the South. For example, in 1886, John G. Nicolay's and John Hay's biography of Lincoln lauded Taney as "a man of amiable character, of blameless life, of great learning, of stainless integrity. . . ." Yet because of one disastrous decision, contended the authors, a lifetime of faithful service had been blighted, and Americans viewed Taney's death as a blessing—the removal of a barrier to human progress.12 Another series of indictments came from the pen of the late nineteenth century

3 Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor (Boston, 1965), p. 477. 4 Samuel Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Tanev. LLD. (Baltimore, 1872). 5 Ibid., x. 6 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. I I Peters 420 (1837). 7 Tyler, Memoir, p. 275. 8 Ibid., p. 277. * Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 (1857). '"Tyler, Memoir, p. 361. "Ibid., p. 470. 12 John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (10 vols.: New York, 1886), IX. p. 385. Roger B. Taney; A Historiographical Inquiry

Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress.

"Whig" historian, James Schouler, in a multivolume History of the United States. He devoted most of his discussion of Taney to a consideration of Dred Scott. Schouler claimed that the Court was dominated by slaveholders and implied that the decision against Scott's rights stemmed from a Southern conspiracy.13 He then repeated the prevailing view that any part of the opinion not dealing with jurisdiction was extrajudicial, and therefore obiter dictum, in other words, a needless provocation that helped bring on the Civil War. Though he paid the Chief Justice a compliment —"Taney had many admirable traits of character, being learned in the law, painstaking, upright, and full of dignity. . ."—Schouler added the curious and seemingly controlling qualification that he was "wanting in the flow of healthy blood.

13 James Schouler, Histon of the United Stales Under the Constitution (1 vols.: New York, 1891) V, pp. 385, 373. 4 Maryland Historical Magazine and henceforth to a large faction of Americans he seemed almost a vampire, hovering in the dim twilight."14

I Two exceptions to the damnation-by-faint-praise approach emerged early in the twentieth century, both presenting a different dimension and evaluation of Taney's career. The first, Arthur May Mowry's Dorr War, analyzed the constitutional struggle in Rhode Island in the ISWs, allowing a consideration of Taney apart from his removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States in 1833 or his response to the Dred Scott challenge in 1857, up to then the incidents exclusively emphasized by Whig historians.15 In Luther v. Borden, the case arising out of the Dorr rebellion, Taney had refused jurisdiction, and thus the Court implicitly upheld the established government of Rhode Island and repudiated Dorr's revolutionary regime.16 Although treating the case and opinion off-handedly, Mowry's reverence for law and order took precedence over the traditional emphasis, and he singled Taney out for praise for his self-restraint in ruling that federal courts lack the power to determine the legality of state governments. Another positive reevaluation of Taney appeared in 1909, with Charles Grove Haines" Conflict Over Judicial Powers.17 Haines went further than Mowry by arguing that the key to Taney's entire judicial career lay in self-restraint. To substantiate this generalization, Haines cited Taney's views in cases dealing with a state boundary dispute18 and disposition of Indian lands,19 as well as Luther v. Borden. On the basis of such "evidence" Haines concluded that Taney wisely ignored the questionable precedents of John Marshall and kept the judiciary out of politics, the province of the legislative and executive branches. Haines strove to strengthen the reader's impression that judicial supremacy flourished under Taney, in spite of, rather than as a result of the Chief Justice's opinions. However, to sustain this view, Haines had to treat the nonjurisdictional parts of Dred Scott and Taney's espousal of supremacy in A bleman v. Booth (1859), as curious exceptions to a consistent career, not as examples of the subtlety and receptivity of Taney's mind requiring further investigation.20

"Schouier's florid language epitomizes Whig historiography on Taney: "Melancholy must have been the spectacle in this cavern of justice, through whose eastern windows glanced the sunbeams as in to some mausoleum. . . . Elaborate, adroitly put together and cruel, it doomed the African of this age . . . exploring musty and worm-eaten codes. . . .Not difficult was it to rake together a heap of rubbish testimony. . .and of all perversions of right, judicial perversion is borne the least patiently, because the fountain, polluted at its source, must be purified or stopped. . . . But the virus of the view promulgated by this highest tribunal of the land corroded the Southern heart, and the poles of our confederated system diverged more widely." Ibid., pp. 375 377. 15 Arthur May Mowry, The Dorr War, (Providence, 1901). '* Luther v. Borden, 1 Howard 1 (1849). " Charles Grove Haines, The Conflict Over Judicial Powers in the United States (New York, 1909). p. 180. "Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters 752 (1838). 19 United States v. Rogers, 4 Howard 572, (1846). '"Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). Roger B. Taney; A Historiographical Inquiry

Home of Roger B. Taney, Bentz Street, Frederick, Maryland. Maryland Historical Society.

With the groundwork laid by Mowry and Haines, John Spencer Bassett and Edward S. Corwin in 1911 appeared to signal the beginning of a general reappraisal of Taney.21 Bassett's account of Taney's role in the Bank War, while superficial and though it did not portray the Chief Justice as the strength and substance behind the Jacksonian form, as some later historians saw it, at least refrained from applying the "pliant instrument of Andrew Jackson" tag. Bassett substantially deviated from traditional accounts in terming Taney's mind vigorous and considering him the ablest of the anti-Bank crusaders, a man burdened with the misfortune "to take an unpopular side in two important crises. . . ."22 The same year, Corwin supplemented Bassett's reassessment of Dred Scott by exposing the self-serving misconceptions of Whig historians.23 After analyzing contemporary judicial theory and practice, Corwin found fault with the nonjurisdictional parts of the opinion, but nevertheless he concluded that they were not obiter dicta within any definition obtainable from a fair review of the practices of the Supreme Court under Marshall.24 However, these budding signs of a favorable consensus among historians regarding

21 John Spencer Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson (New York, 1916). 22 Ibid. p. 647. 23 Edward S. Corwin, "The Dred Scott Decision in the Light of Contemporary Legal Doctrines," American Historical Review. XVII (Oct. 1911), pp. 52-69. 24 Ibid., p. 68. On this same point, two later accounts amplify Corwin's notion. See Horace A. Hagan, "The Dred Scott Decision," Georgetown Law Journal. XV (Jan.. 1927), pp. 95-114; and Wallace Mendelson, "Dred Scott's Case Reconsidered," Minnesota Law Review. XXXVIII (Dec, 1953), pp. 6 Maryland Historical Magazine

Taney proved misleading. In 1913, John Bach McMaster, indicating that Corwin's thesis would gain acceptance only with difficulty, reiterated the traditional Whig assumptions about Dred Scott and judicial usurpation.25 And a few years later, a third-rate biography of a second-rate member of the Taney Court, criticizing Taney's strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution as a potential danger to the existence of the Union, carried the negative Whig theme of judicial self-restraint forward an additional stage.26 Thus Taney was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

II In the aftermath of World War I, many American scholars began to question the historic necessity for the Civil War. Arguing against inevitability, they laid the groundwork for a multicausal interpretation by analyzing the many paths to war and scrutinizing anew the careers of antebellum leaders, including Roger Taney. Ironically, new viewpoints on the Chief Justice came, not from these historians, but from those who rejected "needless war" theories. Their disgust with war generally, and their desire to keep the nation united after an era of divisive Populist and Progressive agitation, caused them to emphasize major points of agreement between Taney and Marshall. One such scholar, Bernard Steiner, a Baltimorean benefiting from recently published Taney correspondence with Andrew Jackson, plus the perspective of time, if not distance, made the first attempt in 1922 at producing a balanced biography of Taney as a complex human being caught up in a rapidly changing environment.27 Unfortunately, Steiner transferred some of his ambivalences and contradictions in outlook and approach to the subject, producing a series of confusing points and counterpoints within each major area of Taney's life. For example, though Steiner denied that Taney was a "pliant instrument of Andrew Jackson," he regarded his subject's arguments against the Bank of the United States to be specious and almost demagogical. Steiner rationalized this as proof of how far prejudice and antipathy could carry an honest man fighting a ruthless enemy and believing in the truth of his overemphatic statements concerning the money power and its influence in the United States. The author also grieved over Taney's Dred Scott discussion of the historical status of Negroes. He characterized his sentiments as false and inhumane, though

16 28. Corwin, however, qualified the general implications of his appraisal with words much like those of Whig historian James Ford Rhodes in his History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 (7 vols.: New York, 1920), II, when he noted that although Taney was acting within the scope of his office: "The Dred Scott decision . . . can and must be written down as a gross abuse of trust by the body that rendered it. . . . During neither the Civil War nor the period of Reconstruction did the Supreme Court play anything like its dual role of supervision." Ibid., pp. 68-69. 25 John Bach McMaster, A History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War (8 vols.: New York, 1913), VIII, p. 280. McMaster gave only passing notice to the nationalist Ableman v. Booth decision. See pp. 358-359. 26 Philip Greely Clifford, Nathan Clifford, Democrat (1803-1881) (New York, 1922), p. 290. 27 Bernard Christian Steiner, Life of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the United Stales (Baltimore, 1922). Steiner grew up in the town where Taney practiced law for nearly twenty-five years and lived his entire adult life in the city of Taney's residence throughout his judicial career. Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry

John Marshall. Library of Congress. uttered by a decent and truthful man, attempting to save the Union. The Chief Justice's political mentality seemed basic to Steiner's contrapuntal approach. He portrayed Taney as a border-state federalist, loving the Union, but never advancing to the position of a nationalist; a man who never forgot the composite and federal character of the United States, but who felt it was necessary at strategic moments to enlarge national power beyond the limits claimed by Marshall. Steiner's complexity even carried into the more mundane aspects of Taney's makeup. Taney, he concluded, "was a clear-thinking, able, high-minded, hot-tempered, narrow, pertinacious, brave, prejudiced man," who invariably found support in a sublime certainty that he was right.28 However, the fact that Steiner never explained these provocative contradictions or allowed most of Taney's constitutional decisions to do

'Ibid., pp. 541 542. 8 Maryland Historical Magazine more than speak for themselves, turned the biography into a series of confusing episodes, rather than a medium for a well-defined, coherent thesis. Another reinterpretation appeared two years later in a seminal work on the Supreme Court.29 Charles Warren, no admirer of Taney or Jacksonianism, took issue with some of Haines' self-restraint thesis. He admitted that although Taney ushered in no Supreme Court revolution and although the interpretation of some constitutional doctrines highly favorable to states' rights took place, the laments of the late nineteenth century historians had been largely unfounded. For Taney not only refused to reverse the broad lines of construction on which the Marshall Court had been proceeding, he went even further than Marshall in the direction of nationalism in admiralty and corporation cases.30 This important comparison represented the first nonbiographical attempt to view Taney, no less than Marshall, as a man expounding a clear-cut, consistent jurisprudence. Warren felt that "Marshall's interests were largely in the constitutional aspects of the cases before him," whereas "Taney's were largely economic and social," and concluded that "it was this change of emphasis from vested, individual property rights to the personal rights and welfare of the general community which characterized Chief Justice Taney's Court." The change stemmed from Taney's recognition of the basic transformation of American society brought about by the adoption of universal suffrage, the transportation and entrepreneurial revolutions, and continental expansion. In addition to his favorable comparison of Taney with Marshall, Warren's emphasis on Civil War "inevitability" enabled him to minimize the Dred Scott decision as a potent factor in causing the war and merely to state with Corwin that the decision severely damaged the prestige of the Court for many years. He differed from Corwin, however, in absolving the Court of blame for the fall in prestige and focusing instead on the "false and malignant criticisms and portrayals of the Court which were spread widely through the North by influential newspapers... ."3l For the next ten years (1924-1934) few writings on Taney appeared.32 However, one promising development did take place in the views of Albert Beveridge. In the nine years between the publication of John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln, Beveridge, his Progressive career long behind him, older and much more conservative, succumbed to the heightened racism of the postwar era and produced a decidedly more favorable appraisal of Taney.33 The author stated that while researching, he

29 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United Slates Historv (3 vols.: Boston, 1924). "Ibid., 11, p. 307. 31 Ibid., Ill, p. 39. 32 In 1923 a vehemently anti-Negro article appeared praising Taney for his "historical insights" in the Dred Scott case. See F. Dumont Smith, "Roger B. Taney," Texas Law Review, I (April, 1923), pp. 261-280. A year later, William E. Mikell wrote an article little more than a laudatory sketch with a brief quotation from Charles Warren, emphasizing Taney's police power orientation, and especially what Mikell called his "sympathetic insight into the social forces ..." William E. Mikell, "Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney," fVest Virginia Law Quarterly, XXX (Jan., 1924), p. 100. He ended praising Taney for attacking Lincoln's suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ibid., p. 103. 33 Albert Beveridge, Life of John Marshall (4 vols.: New York, 1916-1919), IV, and Abraham Lincoln (2 vols.: New York, 1928), II, III, and IV. Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 9 quickly discarded the traditional charge of conspiracy in the Dred Scott case to the "junk-heap of political canards"34 and claimed that most people, even politicians, reacted calmly to the Court's decision. Furthermore, he found that since, in fact, "Taney had no slaves, Campbell had no slaves, and that Daniel, Wayne, and Catron may have had a house servant or two," he had to weigh the Whig charge of slave power influence on the Court somewhat differently.35 Beveridge asserted in 1927: "The more I study the matter, the more... he seems to me to have been an able, upright, patriotic old man."36 Professor F. H. Hodder repeated and expanded this view, two years later.37 He deprecated the Dred Scott decision, but blamed Justices Grier and Catron for leaking advance notice of the majority opinion to President James Buchanan. Hodder thus cleared Taney of half of the traditional conspiracy charge. He then dropped the other half by assigning final blame to Justices Curtis and McLean, the Northern nationalist and antislavery heroes of Whig historiography, for forcing wide-ranging opinions. Hodder thus simultaneously repudiated the charge of slave power influence in Taney's opinion and substantiated Corwin's 1911 "obiter dictum" statement.38 On only one issue did Hodder disagree with Beveridge—the latter's adherence to Civil War "inevitability." There, the Northerner (Beveridge) and the Southerner (Hodder) parted company, since Hodder felt that the Dred Scott decision destroyed Douglas, the only man who might have averted catastrophe.39 Although Beveridge died before his study reached Lincoln's presidential years,40 two works appeared in 1930 describing one phase of the wartime relationship between Taney and Lincoln. In the first, attorney Monroe Johnson reiterated the stand taken by Steiner in 1922, that while somewhat narrow in outlook, Taney responded correctly to the suspension of habeas corpus in 1861.41 But the other work, Charles Fairman's book on martial law, deemed Lincoln's action fully within the scope of his powers as commander-in-chief, given the extreme circumstances.42 Fairman even quoted Taney on martial law in Luther v. Borden (1849) to demonstrate the

34 Claude G. Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era (Boston, 1932), p. 584. 35 Ibid., p. 586. Beveridge's discoveries regarding the charge of conspiracy and slave power influence directly refuted Schouler. However, regarding the excitement over the decision, Beveridge seemed no more than a reiteration from a different direction of the claims already made by Corwin and Warren. 36 Beveridge to Professor F. H. Hodder, Feb. 22, 1927, in Bowers, Beveridge. p. 585. 37 F. H. Hodder, "Some Phases of the Dred Scott Case," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVI (June, 1929), pp. 3-22. See also E. I. McCormac, "Justice Campbell and the Dred Scott Decision," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XIX (March. 1933), pp. 565-571. 38 Hodder, "Some Phases," p. 17. 39 Hodder also repudiated Taney"s use of substantive due process, arguing that Congress had no power to regulate slavery in the territories, an issue still moot in writings on Taney. He also fell that without the influence of Curtis the Dred Scott case would never have been heard of and the whole course of American history would have been changed. "The last volume ends with 1858. •" Monroe Johnson, "Taney and Wilson," American Bar Association Journal (Aug.. 1930), pp. 499-502. t2 Charles Fairman, The Law of Martial Rule (Chicago, 1930). 10 Maryland Historical Magazine

Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress. inconsistencies in his opinion in ex parte Merryman (1861). Fairman declined to derive any implications from these inconsistencies, however.43 As if to summarize the recent scholarship. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in a

" Ibid., p. 167. See also, James Allen Smith, The Growth and Decadence of Constitutional Government (New York, 1930). Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 11

1931 article, lauded Taney's legal scholarship, emphasized his similarity to Marshall in his defense of national power, and placed the blame for the effect of Dred Scott on the "unbridled criticism induced by the temper of the times."44 He mentioned two additional points which would attract much attention from scholars in later years. First, Taney's respect for property rights—always strong, despite the laments of Whig historians reviewing Charles River Bridge. In Branson v. Kinzie (1843), contended Hughes, Taney actually expanded the contract clause by securing the rights of creditors over debtors.45 Second, Taney favored legitimate corporate rights, as witnessed by his decision to allow a corporation licensed in one state to do business in another on the basis of interstate comity (unless barred by the host state).46 By the early 1930's then, certain clear lines of development could be seen in Taney research. First, the Chief Justice had been transformed from a fervent states-rights Democrat to a quasi-nationalist; second, Taney had been virtually cleared of Whig charges of slave power influence and conspiracy in Dred Scott; and, finally, Taney emerged as a conservative on property issues, his conservatism tempered somewhat by consciousness of public welfare considerations. Except for Steiner's brief and somewhat contradictory musings however, no serious effort had yet been made to reveal the inner man, or to explain the apparent contradictions in his life.

Ill By the 1930's three forces had converged to produce a sharp impact on Constitutional historiography. The New Deal gave dimension and urgency to the question of federal power. Among legal historians, those few sympathetic to Roosevelt's program tended to emphasize Taney's judicial "self-restraint" and his "police power" opinions, thus labeling the Chief Justice a dangerous foe of federal activity. The anti-New Deal majority, however, used the same texts to declare Taney a bulwark of the states' struggle against federal encroachment. A second force, the substantial influence of the views of historians Ulrich B. Phillips and Avery Craven, also exerted pressure. Their sympathetic and scholarly apologias for the plight of the slaveholder threw a more favorable light on Taney's relationship with the slave system. Finally, the general acceptance by historians of the "needless war" interpretations of Civil War orgins extended to writers on Taney and the Supreme Court and led to reinterpretations of Taney's role in Dred Scott. The impact of the first force could be seen as early as 1934, when Edward S. Corwin explored the antebellum Supreme Court's views on federal-state relations. Corwin argued that the "central conception of the Court under Taney affecting constitutional interpretations was that of federal equilibrium.. . ."*' In other words, the basis of "Charles Evans Hughes, "Roger Brooke Taney," American Bar Association Journal, XV11 (Dec, 1931), pp. 785-790. "Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters 420 (1837); Bronson v. Kinzie, I Howard 311 (1843). " See Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Deboll, 16 Howard 392 (1854). Whether this decision was truly pro-corporation or not, would become the subject of later inquiries. 47 Edward S. Corwin, Twilight of the Supreme Court (New Haven, 1934). 12 Maryland Historical Magazine

Taney's judicial career had been a jurisprudential common denominator; "that the then existing distribution of powers between the state and the national government should be regarded as something essentially fixed and unchangeable."48 By this statement and its corollaries, Corwin lifted Taney above the mere chronological narratives of Steiner and Tyler, the limitations of the police power per .ve approach of Warren, and Whig writers restricted interpretations of the Bank War and Dred Scott.*9 He then attempted to soften critical judgment on Taney's seeming strict constructionism in Dred Scott by fitting it into the Chief Justice's conceptual framework of faith in a government of laws, not men.50 Corwin concluded by reviewing what he considered the chief theories propounded by the Taney Court—the concept of dual federalism, the doctrine of due process of law, and the conception of liberty as freedom of contract—holding that the "net result was to put the national law-making power into a strait jacket so far as the regulation of business was concerned."51 By ending his analysis with a negative evaluation, Corwin hoped to demonstrate that despite judicial professions of a government of laws, Taney was able to use that facade to implement a personal philosophy, and thus provided clear and disturbing evidence of the New Deal era Supreme Court's extralegal freedom either to sustain or overturn the legislative will. The influence of the forces mentioned above could be seen even more clearly in two later works. In 1935, the standard biography appeared.52 Carl Brent Swisher, a Johns Hopkins political scientist and a critic of the paternalistic aspects of the New Deal (though an admirer of its progressive aspects), distinguished himself from most of his predecessors by delving deeply into primary sources and assembling much informa- tion about Taney not previously available. This resulted in a greater attention to the details of Taney's private life and a far deeper analysis of his leading constitutional decisions. Swisher adopted Steiner's laudatory tone, but unlike Steiner he unfortu- nately gave only lip-service to an environmental analysis, and thus exhibited far less balance in discussing the contradictory effects of that environment on Taney. Swisher argued that despite Taney's federalist upbringing, he entered Jackson's cabinet a devout democrat. Taney had always distrusted concentrations of power and property in the hands of a few individuals, and that provided the key to Taney's role in the Bank War. Regarding his judicial career, Swisher claimed that Taney had never committed himself to the broad nationalism of Marshall and was therefore a staunch believer in local government, whenever it could effectively promote the public welfare, because it

"See ibid., pp. 11-12. 49 Yet Corwin accepted the police power concept as it relates to Taney and placed it and Taney within a Jacksonian framework. Ibid., p. 67. 50 However, Corwin felt this belief by Taney did not prevent lapses of historical sense with his use of substantive due process as a limitation on Congress' legislative power on slavery in the territories, his repudiation of Marshall's test for admiralty jurisdiction in The Genessee Chief v. Filzhugh, 12 Howard 443 (1851), or the contradiction between his consideration of the president's power during the Bank War and that power during the Civil War. 51 Corwin, Twilight of the Supreme Court, p. 181. 52 Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney (New York, 1935). Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 13

John Bach McMaster. Library of Congress. countered the danger of the national government's becoming the tool of moneyed interests. Swisher, joining issue with Steiner's quasi-nationalist thesis, felt that the Chief Justice had implemented his Jacksonian "class-struggle" philosophy in two ways: by exercising judicial self-restraint regarding regulatory power and by using the Court's authority in setting judicial guidelines for the exercise of corporate power. As a result, Swisher gave short shrift to points of continuity with Marshall and to opinions reflect- ing a conception of judicial supremacy. Concerning Taney and slavery, Swisher provocatively wrote that although Taney deplored slavery, he recognized the system as inextricably bound up with Southern civilization, and that abolition would mean Northern domination of all the United States. Denying that Taney had participated in any Dred Scott conspiracy, Swisher nevertheless admitted that the Chief Justice believed in secession as the South's only guarantee of survival (thus inadvertently verifying the Whig historians' charge of disloyalty). Swisher's pro-Southern and anti-federal sympathies led him to justify the notion that: "In view of the arrogance of northern beliefs and the rapaciousness of northern interests it seems probable that Taney was right in his conclusion that the South was doomed if it remained in the Union."53 Supplementary expansion of Swisher and Corwin's views came within a year. Charles Smith54 presented thorough discussions of Taney's political theory and his contribution to constitutional law, averring that Taney combined extensive knowledge s3 Ibid., p. 588. " Charles W. Smith, Roger B. Taney: Jacksonian Jurist (Chapel Hill, 1936). Also see his article "Roger B. Taney and Mr. Biddle's Bank," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXI (March, 1936), pp. 1-6. 14 Maryland Historical Magazine of the law with a democratic philosophy and human sympathy.55 Smith concluded that Taney's chief contribution to constitutional law lay in liberalizing the use of the police power, and resulted from his belief in the paramount nature of the general welfare and sovereignty of the state. As with Swisher, Smith interpreted most, if not all the evidence with a decidedly pro-Taney bias, even to the point of upholding the validity of Taney's Dred Scott opinion. Obsessed with fitting Taney's opinions into a Jacksonian framework. Smith glossed over unruly facts, guided implications to the "proper" conclusions, and rationalized so many contradictions, that his portrait of Taney was no more believable than those produced by Whig historians. Additionally, in making Taney the champion of both democracy and states' rights. Smith had to side with Haines and discount writers and opinions which stressed Taney's judicial supremacy ideas. The extensive use of primary sources, and the comprehensive nature of their analyses, made the Swisher and Smith books the standard works on Taney, despite their obvious biases and overgeneralizations.56 For example, the Georgetown Law Journal soon published three articles on Taney. Two of the authors, William Ransom and Edwin Borchard, relied almost exclusively on Swisher, with results generally assuming variations on a Jacksonian theme.57 The third, Louis Boudin, even carried Taney a step beyond Swisher by labeling him a pragmatist who invariably favored economic progress over tradition and averring with Marxist emphasis, that the major contest during Taney's regime did not occur between states' rights and national rights, but between two forms of property interests.58 He then likened Taney to Marshall in

"Ibid., p. 211. 56 Almost all works about the Taney court published since 1936 uncritically refer to Swisher's book as the standard biography and to Smith's book as the key to Taney's jurisprudence. For example, an article by Walter P. Armstrong relied completely on Smith to demonstrate that Taney accepted Jackson's political philosophy without mental reservations. See "The Rehabilitation of Roger B. Taney," Tennessee Law Review, XIV (June, 1936), pp. 205 218. " William L. Ransom, "Roger Brooke Taney: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1836 1864)." Georgetown Law Journal. XXIV (May, 1936). pp. 809-847. Edwin Borchard, "Taney's Influence on Constitutional Law," ibid., 864-863, and Louis B. Boudin, "John Marshall and Roger B. Taney," ibid., pp. 864 909. However, Ransom refused to carry the theme to every aspect of Taney's judicial career, and therefore limited it to questions involving the rights of corporations. And Borchard, while accepting the conclusions of Swisher and Smith, refused to admit that Taney's opinions could be classified or that Taney could be considered a member of any particular school of political thought. Boudin strongly put this same point, stating that the approach used by Smith was not well-calculated to provide an understanding of Taney's career. While agreeing with Swisher, he denied that any of our Chief Justices or statesmen were legal philosophers and dealt with legal or political questions in the abstract. See Ibid., pp. 834, 854, 888. 58 "The real truth," began Boudin pompously, "is that if there was any distinction between Marshall and Taney in the kind of nationalism which each adhered to, Taney, being the product of the Jacksonian movement, favored the kind of nationalism which the economic circumstances producing that movement required—generally speaking, the development of internal improvements, which meant roads and means of transportation, in which the country then stood in most need." He claimed that Taney held no less a regard for the institution than Marshall, but differed markedly from his predecessor by holding an evolutionary concept of private property, not the static concept of Marshall. Once Boudin accepted the evolutionary- property theory, he had to confront the Dred Scon decision and tailor it to his particular scheme. He did this by using Swisher's argument that to Taney, slavery stood not merely as a form of property, but as an institution basic to Southern civilization, and the theory that in the South, there existed no contest between old and new forms of properly as in the North. Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 15

Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society. his desire to promote governmental activity, differing only on whether the state or the federal government should accomplish that end. In addition, the account again severely and unfortunately underrated Steiner's environmentalism.59 59 Ibid., p. 903. For an elaboration, see a prior work by Boudin. Governmem bv Judiciary (2 vols.: New York, 1932). 16 Maryland Historical Magazine

In 1937, Felix Frankfurter published a rejoinder to Boudin by contending that Taney and Marshall differed chiefly over concepts of governmental power, not forms of property: "Taney's chief difference with Marshall," Frankfurter wrote in his study of the commerce clause, "was in his challenge of the latter's central doctrine, that the 'dormant' commerce clause operated to impose restrictions upon state authority which it was the duty of the Court to define and enforce."60 Frankfurter also argued that Taney's governing outlook in commerce cases reconciled confused aims and accommodated conflicting pressures within the framework of a legal formula, and that in most legal areas, Taney acted neither fanatically nor doctrinairely. Though echoing previous scholars who unquestioningly lauded Taney's judicial self-restraint, Frankfurter took issue with Whig historians who uncritically accepted Taney's Jacksonianism as radically agrarian, and then just as uncritically associated him with the Progressives of Theodore Roosevelt or Robert LaFollette. Frankfurter ended by stating that Taney had an acute mind, an intimate knowledge of affairs based on wide experience, and "the opportunity for influencing the trend of events in the direction of his convictions,"61 an implicit disagreement with Steiner's border-state environmental analysis. A year later, the dogma, cited either as opprobrium by Whig historians or praise by New Deal revisionists, that Taney and his Court sought to protect the public interest at the expense of the rights of private property, came under attack.62 Benjamin F. Wright declared that Taney had preserved the Marshall tradition and that the contract clause was more secure by 1864 than it had been in 1835. To strengthen that argument, Wright had to reinterpret the very gospel of public interest jurisprudence, the Charles River Bridge opinion. Rather than dismiss it as an exception, as other scholars had done with Dred Scott, Wright, insisting that Taney simply refused to go beyond the contract's specific terms, focused narrowly on the text. Thus Charles River Bridge hardly signaled a break with Marshall, for it represented but a slight change in emphasis. Moreover, Wright added that "there were relatively few cases in the Taney period in which the principle of the Charles River Bridge case was applied."63

60 Felix Frankfurter, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall. Taney, and tVaite (Chape\ Hill, 1937), pp. 50-51. "Taney's agrarianism was at bottom an ethical conception of the social responsibilities of private property." Ibid., p. 71. Judicial self-restraint would be the single subject of an article by Dean Acheson who felt it was one of Taney's greatest contributions to constitutional law, even though, in Dred Scott he yielded "to the temptation, always disastrous, to save the country." Dean G. Acheson, "Roger Brooke Taney: Notes on Judicial Self-Restraint," Illinois Law Review, XXXI (Feb., 1937), pp. 705-717. At the time Acheson wrote, the Supreme Court had been under great attack for invalidating much New Deal legislation. "'Ibid., p. 69. The same year, a previously unpublished Taney letter appeared which revealed that "the Chief Justice did not know the laws (and especially those pertaining to such a widely discussed subject as Negroes) of the town where he had lived for 20 years." "An unpublished Letter by Roger B. Taney," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXIl (1937). pp. 225-227. 62 Benjamin Fletcher Wright, Jr., The Contract Clause of the Constitution (Cambridge, 1938). 63 Ibid., p. 65. Although Wright's monograph dealt only with the contract clause, many decisions on that provision contained statements implying refutations of prior scholarly claims of judicial self-restraint and humility. For example, Wright stated that in Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. v. Debolt, 16 Howard 416 (1853), it had been contended on behalf of the state treasurer that the construction given to acts of Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 17

For most of the New Deal era, as in previous periods, scholars viewed Taney through an ideological filter, and the Chief Justice emerged as a conscious and consistent proponent of either populism or nationalism. In 1938, however, Kenneth Umbreit, who had published a critical review of Swisher's biography two years before, wrote a provocative and revisionist essay on Taney. Umbreit argued that "unworldli- ness" explained the Chief Justice's views on slavery, states' rights, and economics, and dictated his choice of reading material, friends, and travel.64 The author cited Taney's narrow reading, his insularity (he hardly ever traveled beyond Washington and Maryland), his pathological shyness, his limited and painfully naive knowledge of economics (Taney relied almost exclusively on Thomas Ellicott of the Union Bank of Maryland for financial advice during the Bank War), and his mastery of appeals and common law procedures, which eliminated most personal contact from a normally worldly profession. Finally, according to Umbreit, Taney measured all relevant issues by the standards of a "border state mentality," intolerant of most aspects of Northern civilization, and barely understanding (even ignorantly sentimentalizing) the South. Yet, in Umbreit's zeal to convince the reader of Taney's unworldliness, his argument lost much of its force due to an inability to concede even the slightest maturation, much less sophistication to a man who held the offices of Chief Justice, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General of the United States. Eighteen years had to elapse before a scholar would attempt to work Umbreit's findings into a tenable thesis.65 A brief resurgence of post-World War I scholarly views occurred in a 1939 work on Taney and Marshall by Ben Palmer66 and in a 1941 work on the Constitution by Beryl Levy. To establish Taney's sophistication, and thus refute Umbreit, Palmer used one of the Chief Justice's anticorporation opinions to indicate his awareness of facts not specified in the judicial record and his appreciation of the realities of business influence on law-making.67 Palmer also saw Taney's opinions as no less effective

Assembly by the state courts ought to be regarded as conclusive. But, Taney held this rule of construction must be confined to ordinary acts of legislation and did not extend to the contracts of the state, although they should be made in the form of a law. "For it would be impossible for this court to exercise any appellate power in a case of this kind, unless it was at liberty to interpret for itself the instrument relied on as the contract between the parties." " Kenneth Umbreit, Our Eleven Chief Justices, In Terms of their Personalities (New York, 1938), p. 216. es In addition, Swisher, in a 1939 article (see footnote 68) admitted that Taney, in Dred Scott, was too intimately involved in the sectional struggle to take an Olympian view and work out a solution from trends and principles. And in Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln (2 vols.: New York, 1950), II, there appear many comments on Taney's stubbornness: "...he was strongly molded by his early Calvert County environment.. . and was deeply sympathetic with Southern ways and manners. . . ." Ibid., II, p. 102. 66 Benjamin Whipple Palmer, Marshall and Taney, Statesmen of the Law (New York, 1939). Also, Swisher, in an article published in the same year, emphasized that most of Taney's democratic ideas were not inherited, or indoctrinated by early training, but arose out of his own thought and experience during his mature years. See Carl Brent Swisher, "Roger B. Taney and the Tenets of Democracy," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXIV (Sept., 1939), pp. 207-222. 67 In Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Debolt Taney stated that ". . . it is a matter of public history, which this Court cannot refuse to notice, that almost every bill for the incorporation of banking companies, insurance and trust companies, railroad companies or other corporations, is drawn originally by the parties who are personally interested in obtaining the charter; and that they are often passed by the 18 Maryland Historical Magazine

Albert Beveridge. Library of Congress.

nationalizing influences than Marshall's, an effort which forced him to sidestep Taney's police power opinions and merely to state that in that area a shift of interest and emphasis existed to some degree. He used many of the same cases relied upon by Boudin for proof of the preeminence of property conflicts over those of jurisdiction, but claimed opposite results. Palmer also criticized previous scholars who had praised Taney's judicial restraint, stating that such praise would lead to the absurd deduction that the way to preserve a power lay in its disuse. In addition, both Palmer and Boudin refused to make Dred Scott an exception to Taney's jurisprudence. However, while Boudin derived the pure property right emphasis to cast Taney into the role of

Legislature in the last days of its session when, from the nature of our political institutions, the business is unavoidably transacted in a hurried manner, and it is impossible that every member can deliberately examine every provision, in every bill upon which he is called on to act." Ohio Life Insurance v. Dehoil, 16 Howard 416, p. 435. Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 19

Southern civilization's champion, Palmer, associating him with Marshall's property- conscious conservatism, used the same case to make him the defender of all forms of private property. Therefore, Palmer had to reconcile Taney's economic conservatism with his public-welfare oriented Charles River Bridge, and "police power" decisions, by making the Chief Justice adhere to the maxim that ". . . the truest conservatism comes in a sane and timely recognition of the need for social and political change."68 These approximated Levy's points too, but, as distinguished from Palmer, he cited judicial continence as the most notable feature of his opinions, allowing the legisla- tures of either the state or the national government to function as freely as possible.69 Thus, what Palmer considered an active nineteenth century conservatism, Levy con- sidered a passive twentieth century liberalism. Both, agreed however that Taney was no philosopher and preferred to live his jurisprudence rather than think it through. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. closed out the New Deal era in Taney scholarship in the Age of Jackson. He began with Taney's cabinet years by denying that he acted as Jackson's tool, yet admitting that Jackson "dominated" him.70 In evaluating Taney's Supreme Court years, Schlesinger, claimed, on the one hand, that the Chief Justice "was an advanced radical Democrat," who set out to read his economic predilections into the Constitution,71 yet, on the other hand, stated that "characteristically, the Court failed to live up to either the hopes of the radicals or the fears of conservatives."72 Schlesinger ended his discussion of Taney by reaching into the pre-New Deal period, adopting Steiner's latent federalism thesis as an explanation of the far reaching nature of Dred Scott, and also likening this "advanced radical Democrat" to nationalists Marshall and Hamilton in the case all previous scholars relied upon to prove Taney's Jacksonianism, Charles River Bridge. Schlesinger took Taney's famous dictum from that case concerning the object and end of government and declared that it foreshadowed a basic shift of the Jeffersonian theory in the direction of Hamiltonianism. "For," said Schlesinger, "Taney's maxim could hardly be distinguished from observations made by Hamilton and Marshall.. . ."73 The influence of Schlesinger's immensely popular book ended general discussions of Taney for a decade. On specific points, however, two postwar works should be noted. In 1950, Mahlon Hellerich, for the first time in Taney scholarship, held that Luther v. Borden, did much more than merely state that the Supreme Court cannot

88 Carl Swisher pursued this theme of active conservatism in the same year, though in a rather confusing and contradictory way. He first stated that, "The American nation in the time of Taney and Jackson was filled with the zest of youth. . . . The preservation of order was the task of government. It was almost the sole task." Swisher, "Roger B. Taney and the Tenets of Democracy," p. 212. However, he went on to call Taney a champion of internal improvements and the police power, both requiring extensive governmental interference. For some superficial expansion and criticisms of Palmer, see Beryl H. Levy, Our Constitution, Tool or Testament? (New York, 1941). "9 See note 68. 70 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, 1945), pp. 41, 65. 11 Ibid., p. 75. As a result, Schlesinger justified Taney's reaction to Luther v. Borden with difficulty, accusing Dorr of representing the right of revolution, not the right of society. 72 Ibid., p. 329. 13 Ibid., pp. 516, 517. 20 Maryland Historical Magazine

take jurisdiction in political controversies.74 It also recognized a state government's inherent power to declare martial law in defense of its sovereignty and gave legal sanction to the status quo previously established in Rhode Island by the Charter government in 1842. In the same year, Allan Nevins attempted to absolve Justices McLean and Curtis of blame for instigating Taney's decision to write and deliver the majority opinion in Dred Scott.15 Nevins placed primary responsibility on Taney, whose patriotism had been eroded by sectionalism, and who therefore wished to use the Court to defend his own people and their institutions, and on Justice Wayne, another Southerner, who made the original motion for a broader decision.76 IV

After World War II, Taney scholars increasingly rejected the democratic-populist thrust of the New Deal years and adhered closely to a judicial-supremacy interpreta- tion. The Supreme Court by reasserting judicial authority in the 1950's increased its influence after many years of self-restraint and defensive reactions, and the Court's renewed emphasis upon extraiegal arguments in its determinations largely accounted for this shift. As a result, scholars reacted more sensitively and approvingly to the idea of Court power. Besides this new judicial assertiveness, the enhanced reputation of social scientists and psychologists since World War II signaled a reevaluation of environmentalism in an attempt to interpret Taney. An early example of these developments appeared in the work of Carl Swisher, who in 1965 had an opportunity to review his 1935 work in the light of subsequent scholarship.77 While sticking to previously presented data, Swisher, delving much more deeply into environmentalism and the complexities of motivation, reached different conclusions. He began by asserting that Taney came to the Supreme Court with, among other ideas, a deep sense of local pride in Maryland which easily extended to all Southern states and concluded that those attachments explained much of Taney's fundamental attitudes, and some of his constitutional interpretations.78

'" Mahlon H. Hellerich, "The Luther Case in the Lower Courts," Rhode Island History, 11, (April, 1952), pp. 33-45. Hellerich. due to the nature of his study, did not refer to the seeming contradiction between Taney's martial law views in Luther and his views on the Prize Cases and ex pane Merryman. 75 Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, (2 vols.: New York, 1950), II, pp. 473-477. 76 Hopkins did not examine this theory or even include it in his major work on the Dred Scon case published a year later. See Vincent Hopkins, S.J.. Dred Scon's Case (New York, 1951), pp. 53-59. Nevins had earlier, in 1942, taken a view which indirectly substantiated Curtis on the territorial question while repudiating Taney, See "The Constitution, Slavery, and the Territories" in The Caspar G. Bacon Lectures on the Constitution of the United States, 1940 /950 (Boston, 1953), pp. 97 141. Randall discussed Taney's role during the Civil War more extensively than any other work, covering all the major legal clashes between Lincoln and Taney. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (New York. 1926). However, in 1957, David Silver, Randall's student, while equally sympathetic toward Lincoln, attempted to analyze Taney's motivation where Randall seemed content merely to discuss Taney in connection with the specific language of his judicial opinions. David M. Silver, Lincoln's Supreme Court (Urbana, 1957). 77 Carl Brent Swisher, "Mr. Justice Taney," in Allison Dunham and Phillip B. Kurland, eds., Mr. Justice (Chicago, 1956), pp. 204-228. 78 Ibid., p. 209. Roger B. Taney; A Historiographical Inquiry 21

Roger B. Taney. Library of Congress.

Swisher also emphasized Taney's Southern defensiveness on slavery and stated that in matters of legal and social philosophy, Chief Justice Taney remained very much a citizen of Maryland: "Whether for good or evil, those convictions were basic to his interpretations of constitutional law."79 "It is hard for us to envisage the peacefulness and the richness of living, for black people and white people alike," in Taney's Maryland and many other states, commented Swisher with some of Taney's own love for his "country," yet he also felt it hard to comprehend the "seemingly self-willed blindness of Taney . .. who refused to look ... to mass-production plantations .. . where Negroes were worked to death under the lash of ruthless overseers."80 Swisher's catholicity thus led him to combine Steiner's border-state environmentalism

'"Ibid., p. 217. 8» Ibid., p. 227. 22 Maryland Historical Magazine

and Umbreit's unworldliness, in an attempt to tie up all loose ends. However, a concession to post-1954 revisionism appeared in Swisher's refusal to consider Dred Scott an exception to a career of judicial self-restraint. Instead, he edged warily and obliquely toward a theory of judicial activism and supremacy.81 Signaling a major revision of New Deal historiography, Foster H. Sherwood and John Schmidhauser took Swisher's judicial-supremacy inferences and molded them into a general interpretation of Taney's career. Sherwood's The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government and Politics, probably an edited version of a Charles Grove Haines manuscript, isolated three major themes in Taney Court decisions: the "...continued growth of the power of the nation as against that of the states; concomitant growth of the federal judicial power; and the development of a basis for the protection of property rights, particularly corporate property. . . ."82 As distin- guished from Haines' earlier work which held that these developments occurred despite Taney, the later study placed the Chief Justice directly in the conscious center of decision making.83 Schmidhauser continued and even extended the judicial supremacy theme in The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789-1957;si even when the Court tended to sustain the freedom of state legislative authority, it did not base its attitude upon suspicion of federal authority, but simply upon the concept that the states have vital roles to play in the operation of a truly federal system. The author even found it possible to include parts of the Luther v. Borden within his basic theme by declaring that Taney refused to be deterred from discussing the right of a state to declare martial law, despite its "political" nature. Schmidhauser included a highly sophisticated attempt to reconcile judicial supremacy and judicial self-restraint by making the Court the final arbiter of its own jurisdiction, whether broad, narrow, or nonexistent, and by maintaining the vitality of the state governments without weakening the cardinal principle of federal supremacy. The rough places left in this argument were then made plain. In 1960, Robert G. McCloskey contended that if one saw the process of adaptation to the contours of a changing America in terms of either pure judicial supremacy to pure self-restraint, an important point would be missed: "that the result of this adjustment process was to fortify the judicial power by creating an atmosphere of public acceptance more

81 "As for the impact of the controversy on his subsequent judicial attitudes, his desire to narrow the scope of federal judicial power, and to leave vast power of unchecked constitutional interpretation in Congress may have yielded to greater confidence in judicial power when men of his own political and social philosophy came to dominate the Supreme Court—as witness the reaching out for judicial power in the Dred Scott case." Ibid., p. 216. Although he used Dred Scott as his only example, one can see that it was an example, not an exception—an important shift of balance. 82 Charles Grove Haines and Foster H. Sherwood, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government and Politics. 1835-1864 (Berkeley, 1957). 83 However, one unfortunate aspect was the author's felt need to justify the apparently judicial self-restraining Luther v. Borden decision as an exception. They explained with poor logic, given Taney's Civil War opinions, that his decision was based not upon a personal view of judicial self-restraint, but on the pragmatic consideration that the decision might not be obeyed. 84 John R. Schmidhauser, The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789-1951 (Chape! Hill, 1958). Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 23

Walker Lewis. Maryland Historical Society. complete than the Court had ever before enjoyed."85 McCloskey felt that the Taney Court consolidated the most essential judicial gains by a deft combination of tenacity and flexibility, and as a result not even the monumental indiscretion of Dred Scott could destroy the judicial imperium. The Court felt it necessary to preserve its own status as a national tribunal, and thus continence became not an end, but a means toward judicial supremacy. To prove this thesis, McCloskey interpreted most Taney decisions as promoting middle-ground solutions between the extremes of the nationalists and the states' rightists, yet still maintaining a line of continuity with the views of John Marshall. Despite his attempt at balance, McCloskey's account suffered some traditional infirmities. To accentuate moderation and compromise, he had to slide over Dred

' Robert G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court (Chicago, 1960). 24 Maryland Historical Magazine

Scott and Ableman v. Booth, as the "exceptions." Also, the author appeared to clothe the Court with conscious motivation in pursuing judicial supremacy through judicial self-restraint, while presenting very little supporting evidence. By 1960, repetition had made the judicial supremacy emphasis as given, appar- ently beyond challenge. Walker Lewis then published Without Fear or Favor, a chatty life of Taney, following no recognizable ideological theme whatever.86 The biography, but for one seemingly random insight, could only be distinguished from Swisher by its greater use of Taney's family and private correspondence.87 However, in presenting Taney's professional and nonprofessional life, Lewis emphasized what previous writers had only casually accepted and which had been used merely to describe rather than to explain him:

"The central and ever-recurring problem of the family was health. So much attention did this absorb that we may well wonder if they did not attract illness by the very power of their concentration. Taney once called himself a 'valetudinarian,' ... a person chronically concerned about health. . . . "88 These and numerous references to what Lewis terms pathological shyness and anxiety with people added a provocative new dimension to Taney, the implications of which scholars have yet to explore fully. Judicial supremacy again engaged a historian's attention in a 1967 article by Michael A. Conron on Taney's role in Luther v. Borden."9 Prior writers, Schmid- hauser and Hellerich excepted, arguing for judicial supremacy invariably labeled the case sui generis and neglected to analyze it and Taney's opinion fully. However, they used the decision to prove judicial self-restraint in political controversies by those seeking to uphold judicial compromise and moderation. Conron's inquiry into Taney's entire opinion attempted in small part to refute the judicial self-restraint theory. He demonstrated that the Chief Justice merely disclaimed jurisdiction by holding the Rhode Island controversy purely political in order to protect himself from charges of meddling. Taney could then adroitly manipulate his opinion through obiter dictum, so as to define the legal issue in terms of national sovereignty, designate the responsibilities of the political departments, and prescribe the proper solution to the political question.90 Soon after Conron's article, R. Kent Newmyer's study reiterated and extended McCloskey's arguments.91 He adopted the entrepreneurial thesis, particularly Marvin

86 Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor (Boston, 1965). 87 Lewis relied much on elements extraneous to Taney's life and career under the guise of presenting an environment for the Chief Justice, such as the Peggy Eaton Affair, which helped elevate Taney to Jackson's cabinet, and the Amistad case, 15 Peters 518 (1841)—in neither of which he figures. 88 Ibid., p. 258. According to Lewis, Taney overemphasized his frailty and many of his ills were psychosomatic. Ibid., pp. 259-260. 89 Michael A. Conron, "Law, Politics, and Chief Justice Taney: A Reconsideration of the Luther v. Borden Decision," American Journal of Legal History, XI (Oct., 1967), pp. 377-388. 90 Ibid., p. 387. 91 R. Kent Newmyer, The Supreme Court Under Marshall and Taney (New York, 1968). Roger B. Taney: A Historiographical Inquiry 25

Roger B. Taney. Maryland Historical Society.

Meyer's concept of the "venturesome conservative,"92 in vogue at one time in Jacksonian studies, and applied it to the Taney Court. It represented both the dominant power group and the large middle-class of Americans, as aspirants to progress without loss of what they already had, and seekers after a constitutional system permitting change within conservative limits. "In short," said Newmyer, "constitutional law under Marshall and Taney was a victory of process over substance."93 Aside from the problems inherent in assuming that the Supreme Court represented a particular socioeconomic group, especially a Court containing men from diverse classes and sections, Newmyer's theory led him into the even more dangerous overgeneralization that the "Court accepted without question the cultural assumptions of the age."94 However, once proven by more scrupulous scholarly standards, historians could use the doctrine of "process over substance" as part of a comprehensive description of Taney's motivation in promoting judicial supremacy. The most recent work on Taney subjected Newmyer's generalizations to a more intensive and restricted study. Stanley I. Kutler's monograph on the Charles River Bridge case attempted to negate earlier Whig charges of Taney as a strict-construc- tionist and agrarian slaveocrat.95 He held that Taney fashioned a legal doctrine justifying "creative destruction—a continuous process whereby new inventions and enterprises create new goods and services, and destroy existing ones, all under the often empty banner of progress, improvement, and need."96 He reiterated earlier

92 See Marvin Meyers. The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (SianiorA, 1957), Chaps. 2 and 3. 93 "The victory was embodied in a vital, organic Constitution capable of ordering, yet responsive to, historical change. The method was amendment by judicial review. The system was adumbrated by the Framers of the Constitution, implemented and amplified by the Marshall Court, and tested and verified by the Taney Court." Newmyer, Marshall and Taney, p. 152. ^Ibid., pp. 151 152. 9S Stanely 1. Kutler, Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case (Philadelphia, 1971). •"•Ibid., p. 160. 26 Maryland Historical Magazine

arguments that Taney adapted the judicial system to the idea of progress and contributed to American law by perceiving the economic and technical implications of the Charles River Bridge issues.97 Kutler's thesis, unfortunately, suffered from the same external problems as Newmyer's entrepreneurial generalizations. In addition, Kutler inadvertently revealed an internal difficulty, basic to prior works on Taney, especially the non-biographical studies. On the one hand, he stated that the law promulgated by Taney seemed not an exercise in abstraction, but a synthesis of principle and expediency reflecting the innovative and acquisitive values of the American people. Yet, on the other, he saw a shadow cast on that synthesis, because the facts of the case did not entirely support either his legal doctrines or his noble purposes:

"The accommodation of innovation, which so concerned Taney did not correlate with the models he himself projected .. . The Chief Justice spoke of obsolete property forms that thwarted the community's need for improvement and progress; but the legislative decision to create a new bridge was not a technological advance. Instead, the purpose was to relieve the community of tolls. . . ."98 In addition, Kutler failed even to cite a series of cases which would have borne out his neo-entrepreneurial thesis even more strongly, namely Taney's patent opinions. As Kutler compared Taney's and Story's responses to the Charles River Bridge case, he might well have denoted a footnote or appendix to a comparison of their patent law views.

Attempts to illuminate Taney's life and career have lifted him from vampire to hero and transformed him from agrarian to nationalist, from judicial abstainer to judicial supremacist, and many times back again and in between. Such reversals, overgenerali- zations, and contradictions have necessarily created a confused and distorted picture of Taney, and despite a century of scholarship, he remains a symbol of civilization, of Jacksonianism, of entrepreneurial foresight, or of some other abstraction. Conse- quently, Taney as politician, judge, and human being, remains hidden to us. Despite the fact that no one has yet worked earlier flashes of insight into Taney's unworldliness and ambivalence toward race, economics, and politics into a fully- researched legal-historical thesis, these insights still exist. Even though Luther v. Borden remains a model of judicial self-restraint, Conron's provocative counter-evi- dence stands ready for further exploration. And as legal historians become more sensitive to the recurrent references to Taney's health by Lewis, and cognizant of the pioneering works done in the area of psychoanalytic history,99 they will be able to account for certain of the Chief Justice's associations, attitudes, and opinions, and will hopefully add new dimensions to this complex historical figure.

"Ibid., p. 161. "Ibid., p. 170. 99 A.pioneering work on the possible effects of illness on decision-making process is Hugh L'Etang's The Pathology of Leadership (New York, 1970). Frederick Douglass: Maryland Slave to Religious Liberal

WILLIAM L. VAN DEBURG

Do not class me with those who despise religion—do not identify me with the infidel. . . .* o'Nf APRIL 26, 1870, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass addressed a gathering assembled at Philadelphia's Horticultural Hall to celebrate the recent ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a powerful speech, Douglass refused to follow the views of the city's black clergy on the subject of God's role in the successful anti-slavery crusade. "I dwell here in no hackneyed cant about thanking God for this deliverance. ..," he intoned, "my thanks tonight are to willing hearts and willing hands that labored in the beginning, amid loss of reputation, amid insult and martyrdom, and at imminent peril of life and limb." Wendell Phillips, Elijah Lovejoy, John Brown, and Abraham Lincoln were lauded for their contribu- tions to the abolitionist cause. The Deity was shunned.1 Douglass' speech, marking the degree to which he had abandoned the beliefs of his youth, was an important milestone in his lifelong journey toward and through religious liberalism. This gradual shift in perception of the Godhead is certainly not unique among Christians, but the events which furthered the liberalization of his theology could be experienced by only one group of nineteenth-century Americans— the Negro slave turned freedman. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Douglass was definitely not a "common" freedman. His unique experiences as a chattel, abolitionist, and author necessitate an individual examination of his changing conception of God. Young Douglass was exposed to the Biblical concept of a Supreme Being in the mid-1820's. One source of information was "Uncle" Isaac Copper, who taught a group of thirty slave youngsters the Lord's Prayer, encouraging the pupils' attention by the liberal use of a hickory switch. Douglass later wrote, "There was in my mind, even at that time, something a little inconsistent and laughable in the blending of prayer with punishment." The youngsters were also led to believe that God was good

* Frederick Douglass at Market Hall, New York City, October 22, 1847. 1 Philadelphia Press, April 27, 1870; Herbert Aptheker, "An Unpublished Frederick Douglass Letter," Journal of Negro Hislorv, XLIV (July, 1959), pp. 278-280. See also Philip S. Foner, Frederick Douglass (New York, 1964), p. 269.

27 28 Maryland Historical Magazine

Frederick Douglass. Library of Congress. Frederick Douglass 29 and knew what was best for everyone. White people were made to be rulers, while blacks were created as slaves.2 Sophia Auld, his master's wife, was a more important influence than "Uncle" Isaac. Douglass was fascinated by his mistress' mastery of the printed word and delighted in hearing her read the Holy Bible. Quickly denied access to this channel of knowledge by Hugh Auld, he became an avid seeker of clandestine printed matter. By converting neighborhood white boys into teachers, Douglass learned to read, but soon developed a deep loneliness and melancholy. When he was thirteen years old, a white Methodist minister caused him to feel that he had a friend in God. The young slave did not know exactly what was required of a Christian, but he professedly realized that all men were sinners who must repent and be reconciled to God. Recalling this conversion experience in later years he noted, "I finally found my burden lightened, and my heart relieved. ... I saw the world in a new light, and my great concern was to have everybody converted."3 Supported in his worship by a devout Negro acquaintance who lived near the Aulds, Douglass surrendered himself completely to this new faith in God, eventually establishing a Sunday School for fellow bondsmen. His reliance on an other-wordly Being could not, however, erase the evidence of the slave master's apparent supremacy in purely physical matters. Various owners and overseers were at times vicious and brutal. Captain Aaron Anthony savagely whipped a young slave woman who had been secretly meeting with her lover. Colonel Edward Lloyd laid stripes on a slave mother of five for the heinous crime of "impudence." Douglass was deeply moved by "one of the most heart-saddening and humiliating scenes" that he had ever witnessed when "Old Barney" was given thirty lashes.4 Descriptions of such observed physical punishments abound in Douglass' writings and are too well documented in studies of the plantation system to attribute them to a fertile imagination encouraged by the requirements of the anti-slavery lecture circuit. He was most disheartened by the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by his two most avowedly Christian masters, Thomas Auld and Edward Covey. Captain Auld's conversion to Christianity did not modify his treatment of the slaves. "If religion had any effect at all on him," Douglass wrote, "it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways."5 No improvement was made in the chattels' swill-like food. Disobedient slaves were still whipped, except now Auld quoted Bible verses to justify his deeds. After a second Negro Sabbath School was broken up by a group of white Christians,

2 Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (New York, 1962), p. 43. 3 Ibid., p. 90. Charles Chesnutt wrote that Douglass had dreamed of liberty before becoming a Christian, but after his conversion he "prayed for it, and trusted in God." Booker Washington wrote that this new faith in God enlarged Douglass' mind, restrained his impatience, softened his disposition, and encouraged his hope for ultimate freedom. Charles Chesnutt, Frederick Douglass (Boston, 1899), p. 12; Booker T. Washington. Frederick Douglass (Philadelphia, 1906), p. 28. ' Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom (New York, 1855), p. 113. 5 Douglass, Life and Times, p. 109. 30 Maryland Historical Magazine

Douglass noted that "this conduct, on the part of class-leaders and professedly holy men, did not serve to strengthen my religious conviction."6 Covey was an expert slave breaker as well as a class-leader in the Methodist Church. It was certainly not Christian love that enabled Covey to break Douglass in body and spirit in the summer of 1834. After his terrifying experiences on the Covey farm, the future abolitionist could only reflect that "of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst."7 It was only the freer rein allowed Douglass by William Friedland, an unbeliever, that enabled him to reassert his belief in the Christian God. After conducting a Sabbath School at the house of a free Negro near the Friedland estate, he was allowed to return to Baltimore as an apprentice in the ship-building trade. Douglass promptly took advantage of this new freedom and joined the Sharp Street Methodist Church. After fleeing to the North in 1838, the twenty-one-year-old ex-slave continued to be "religiously inclined," soon becoming a class-leader and licensed preacher in the Negro New Bedford Zion Methodist Church. Nevertheless, as Benjamin Quarles has written, the slave whippings and deprivations left "a lasting impression on his plastic mind."8 An extensive analysis of Black Methodism is beyond the scope of this study. For the purpose of ascertaining Douglass' acceptance of mainstream Christian doctrine in the 1840's and 1850's it is sufficient to note that most black Christians viewed God as an omnipotent Being who was the final judge of all human actions and the just, loving force, ever on the side of oppressed peoples.9 During the pre-Civil War years, Douglass displayed an awareness of an incredible number of doctrinal issues. His opinions on these issues clearly showed a devotion to and a reverence of the Christian God. That God created the earth and then allowed sinful man to inhabit its surface was a foregone conclusion in Douglass' mind. In 1852, at the National Free Soil Convention in Pittsburgh, he asserted his belief in the Supreme Being's omnipotence by declaring, "The earth is God's, and it ought to be covered with righteousness, and not slavery."10

'Ibid,, p. 111. Mrs. Rowena Auld nearly starved her slaves and yet, "with saintly air," she and her husband prayed daily that a merciful God would bless the chattels "in basket and store, and save them at last in His Kingdom." (p. 105). 7 Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (Cambridge, 1960), p. 110. 8 Benjamin Quarles, "Douglass' Mind in the Making," Phylon, VI, No. I (1945), p. 7; Samual J. May, Some Recollections of Our Antislavery Conflict (New York, 1869), p. 293. For a fascinating study of what Douglass was likely to hear on Sunday morning see William Pipes, Say Amen, Brother! Old Time Negro Preaching: A Study in American Frustration (New York, 1951). 9 Benjamin Mays, The Negro's God as Reflected in His Literature (New York, 1968), p. 126. For a more complete study of the black Methodists see Dwight Culver, Negro Segregation in the Methodist Church (New Haven, 1953), pp. 42 60; Joseph Hartzell, "Methodism and the Negro," Journal of Negro History, VIII (July, 1923), pp. 301-315; William Gravely, "Early Methodism and Slavery," Wesleyan Quarterly Review, II (May, 1965), pp. 84 100; Jeffrey Brackett, The Negro in Maryland: A Study of the Institution of Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, VI), pp. 205-206. 10 Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 11, 1852, in Philip S. Foner, ed.. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas (4 vols.; New York, 1950-1955), II, p. 206. Frederick Douglass 31

Wendell Phillips. Library of Congress.

The Creator was also the Supreme Judge of the Universe. Even as a child, Douglass attributed an approaching cholera epidemic to a God who was "angry with the white people because of their slaveholding wickedness" and therefore, sought to punish the wrongdoers.11 In an 1847 letter to aged slaveholder-statesman Henry Clay, Douglass reminded him that he must soon appear before God to "render up an account" of his stewardship. The abolitionist asked Clay if he thought that God would hold him guiltless if he died without freeing his chattels.12 Again in January 1848, Douglass noted the power of his God, when, in a protest against the Mexican War, he pleaded for an end of hostilities and the recall of American troops. If such action was not

11 Douglass, Life and Times, p. 89. 12 Douglass to Henry Clay, in North Star, Dec. 3, 1847. 32 Maryland Historical Magazine taken, "so sure as there is a God of justice," the entire nation would be punished for their acceptance of the cruel "slaveholding crusade".13 Slaveholders supporting the war would be held responsible "at the judgement, in the sight of a just God." 14 Douglass believed that God created all men as equals and endowed them with strength and intellect through the workings of his grace and wisdom. Before he began his extensive search for Christian knowledge, the young chattel became perplexed and worried over the contradiction in plantation theology which posited the existence of a "good" God who allowed the "bad" institution of slavery to prosper. Not until he overheard one of his co-laborers explaining how blacks were captured and brought to America in chains did he realize that inequality was a man-made condition.15 In an 1849 newspaper article Douglass encouraged fellow Negroes to continue their upward climb out of the intellectual and spiritual darkness imposed by slavery. Clearly championing human equality, he echoed the words in The Acts of the Apostles by noting that God was "no respecter of persons, and hath made of one blood all nations for to dwell upon all the face of the earth."16 In exposing white America's fear of Negro equality in an 1850 article, Douglass exhibited his belief in the ability of God to strengthen and rehabilitate a depressed people. The Negro "stands erect," he wrote, "upon his brow he bears the seal of manhood, from the hand of the living God." 17 Not only did Douglass believe in a God-given physical strength, but he also ascribed the molding of man's mental capabilities to the Supreme Being. In an 1846 speech at Moorfields, England, the fiery abolitionist urged British Christians to condemn slavery in the United States because it destroyed the chattel's intellect, a faculty which was given to all people by the God of Creation.18 Douglass held that all of these gifts were made possible by God's grace, which was "sufficient" to enable him to escape slavery's shackles, and by the workings of the Creator's own powers of intellect as revealed in the Scriptures.19 Heavenly wisdom was pure, peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of mercy and without partiality or hypocrisy.20 He often compared these characteristics of God's rule to the popular slaveholding interpretation of the Holy Bible which "makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man."21 The most important theological issue raised by Douglass was his attempt to show that a wise God invariably entered into the thoughts and actions of men, allying with

"North Star, Jan. 21, 1848. 14 Douglass, My Bondage, p. 191. '"Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator. Sept. 22, 1848. 16 North Star, Jan. 19, 1849. " North Star, ime 13, 1850. 18 Speech at Moorfields, England, May 22, 1846, in My Bondage, Appendix, p. 408. '" Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator, Sept. 22, 1848. 20 Speech at Moorfields, England, May 22, 1846, in My Bondage, Appendix, p. 416. 21 Frederick Douglass, Oration Delivered in Corinthian Hall (Rochester, 1852), p. 29. Frederick Douglass 33

John Brown. Library of Congress. 34 Maryland Historical Magazine

the forces of right against the powers of evil. Douglass was certain of God's support when he proclaimed, "He who has God and conscience on his side, has a majority against the universe." 22 The Supreme Rule would "bring to naught" the councils of the ungodly and "confound the wisdom of the crafty." 23 Moreover, it was quite simple to enlist God in a noble cause. In a letter to Henry Clay, he used the ideas expressed in Isaiah 58:9 to support his case for emancipation.24 Without supernatural aid, slavery would be a continuing menace to the black man. God, decreeing that America should have no peace until she repented, was responsible for supporting the abolitionists in their crusade.25 Indeed, it was "a happy interposition of God" that Douglass was able to "burst up through the dark incrustation of malice and hate" to become an anti-slavery lecturer.26 He confidently believed that the "forces" of Heaven would eventually destroy the chattel system. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened and the doom of slavery is certain." 27 Certainly nothing but God's truth and love could "cleanse the land" of its most despicable institution.28 In addition to this deep faith in God's ability to further the abolitionist cause, he also mirrored mainstream black Christianity in his condemnation of those who relied on the powers of reason instead of on a just Creator. In 1852, Douglass condemned the writings of Voltaire, Bolingbroke, and Thomas Paine as infidelic.29 A year later, he blasted a group of fellow reformers for their questioning of the Holy Bible's authority. The Bible was a sacred text. To disregard its power would be as foolish as it would be "to fling away the Constitution."30 It would be a mistake, however, to portray Douglass as a piously conservative Christian. His biographers have correctly noted that he was not orthodox in his doctrine. His belief that religion should be used as an instrument for social reconstruction led him to despise the passive attitude shown by many Negro ministers. As he progressed in his abilitionist career, Douglass was influenced by those champions of Reason, Transcendentalism, and Unitarianism whose doctrines he had condemned. In an 1848 essay, he noted that the destiny of the Negro race was committed to human hands. God was not wholly responsible for freeing those in

22 Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 11, 1852, in Foner, Life and Writings, II, p. 209. 23 Frederick Douglass, "The Folly of Our Opponents," in The Liberty Bell (Boston, 1845), p. 168. See also speech at New York City, Oct. 22, 1847, in National Anti-Slaverv Standard, Oct. 28, 1847; North Star, Feb. 8, 1850. z' Douglass to Henry Clay, in North Star, Dec. 3, 1847. Douglass cited God's promise by writing: "then shalt thou call and the Lord shall answer, thou shalt cry and he will say. Here I am." 25 Douglass to Samuel Hanson Cox, Oct. 30, 1846, in Liberator, Nov. 27, 1846. 26 Speech at New York City, May II, 1847, in National Ami-Slavery Standard, May 20, 1847. 27 Douglass, Oration, p. 37. 28 Speech at New York City, Oct. 22, 1847, in National Anti-Slavery Standard, Oct. 28, 1847. 29 Douglass, Oration, p. 29. 30 Frederick Douglass, Two Speeches (Rochester, 1857), p. 45. See also speech at London, England, March 30, 1847, in Foner, Life and Writings, 1, p. 217; Benjamin Quarles, Frederick Douglass (Washing- ton, D.C., 1948), p. 105. Frederick Douglass 35

Henry Ward Beecher. Library of Congress.

bondage.31 By 1853, he was willing to criticize Henry Ward Beecher's reliance on God to end slavery. If Beecher had been a slave, Douglass noted, he would have been "whipped . .. out of his willingness" to wait for the power of Christian faith to break his chains.32 Increasingly, enlightenment terminology crept into Douglass' writings and speeches. Negroes were adjudged to be "free by the laws of nature."33 The slaves'

31 North Star, July 14, 1848. 32 Benjamin Quarles, "Abolition's Different Drummer," in Martin Duberman, ed., The Antislaverv Vanguard (Princeton, 1965), p. 127: Annual Report of the American Anti-Slaverv Society for I85S (New York, 1853), pp. 51, 55. 33 Speech at Chicago, Nov., 1854, in Foner, Life and Writings. II, p. 317. 36 Maryland Historical Magazine claim to freedom was "backed up by all the ties of nature, and nature's God."34 Man's right to liberty was self-evident since "the voices of nature , of conscience, of reason, and of revelation, proclaim it as the right of all rights. . . ."35 An important factor acting to liberalize Douglass' theological views was his association with fellow abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. The turbulent editor of The Liberator had been an orthodox Baptist who looked to the Church as God's appointed instrument for ending slavery. The Holy Bible was both a source of spiritual power and the arsenal from which he selected his anti-slavery weapons. Garrison broke violently with the clergy after they criticized his methodology.36 In denouncing the churches as a hindrance to abolitionism and true Christianity, he undoubtedly influenced his young black protege who believed the abolitionists to be the "most pure, enlightened and benevolent" people in the country.37 Douglass was also affected by the words of transcendentalist preacher Theodore Parker. The minister's ideas on the perfectibility of man and the sufficiency of natural religion were eventually incorporated in the abolitionist's epistemology. In 1854, Douglass noted, "I heard Theodore Parker last Sabbath. No man preaches more truth than this eloquent man, this astute philosopher, . . ."38 Another outstanding influence on his increasingly liberal conception of God was Robert Ingersoll, a militant agnostic who befriended him on a trip to Illinois. Appalled by the lack of compassion shown him by Midwest Christians, Douglass wrote, "to be an infidel no more proves a man to be selfish, mean, and wicked, than to be evangelical proves him to be honest, just, and humane." 39 This charge was to be repeated time and again in his writings. By April 1870, and his speech at Horticultural Hall, Douglass held a much different concept of God than he had as a young man. As he explained the reasons for his break with the Garrisonians in March 1860, Douglass spoke of such a change:

1 have been very much modified both in feeling and opinion within the last fourteen years. Subsequent experience and reading have led me to examine [opinions] for myself. This has brought me to other conclusions. When 1 was a child, I thought and spoke as a child.•") His faith in God's ability to destroy the slave system was weakened by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 and by the Dred Scott decision of 1857, both of

34 Douglass' Monthly, Jan., 1859. 35 Douglass, Two Speeches, p. 32. 36Goldwin Smith, William Lloyd Garrison (New York, 1892), p. 109; John Jay Chapman, William Lloyd Garrison (Boston, 1921), pp. 164-165; Oliver Johnson, William Lloyd Garrison and His Times (Boston, 1880), p. 67. 37 Douglass to Thomas Auld, in Liberator, Sept. 22, 1848. See also Quarles, "Douglass' Mind," p. 5. Quarles noted that the ten-year association with the Garrisonian reformers "obviously entered into the fabric of his thinking." 38 J. R. Balme, American Slates, Churches, and Slavery (Edinburg, 1862), p. 221. See also Washington, Frederick Douglass, p. 321; Douglass' Monthly, July, 1860. 39 Douglass, Life and Times, p. 462; Quarles, Frederick Douglass, pp. 293-294. "Speech at Glasgow, Scotland, March 26, I860, in Foner, Life and Writings, II, p. 480. Frederick Douglass 37

Frederick Douglass. Library of Congress. which appeared to end all hope of speedy emancipation. With this abandonment of God, Douglass came to the conclusion that only man, aided by the laws of nature, could solve earthly problems. Furthered in this belief by the Civil War's seemingly godless brutality, he asserted that even if the Confederacy defeated the Union Army, "nature with the aid of free discussion would set herself right in the end. Great is truth, great is humanity, and they must prevail."41 Douglass took another large step toward a humanistic theology just one week before the Philadelphia address. On April 19, 1870, he spoke at the American Anti-Slavery Society convention in New York City. Noting that many others had

"Speech at New York City, Feb., 1863, in Douglass" Monthly, March, 1863. 38 Maryland Historical Magazine thanked God for the success of the abolition movement, he thanked "those faithful men and women, who have devoted the great energies of their soul to the welfare of mankind," for the victory over slavery. It was only through such individuals that he could "get a glimpse of God anywhere."42 This oration, along with the Philadelphia ratification speech mirrored the change that had been wrought in Douglass' thinking. Man had become the prime mover in his life. Philadelphia's black Christian leadership raged at Douglass' seemingly blatant apostasy. A group of the city's leading ministers met at Bethel Colored Methodist Episcopal Church to formulate an appropriate answer to this doctrinal challenge, lest his observations gain widespread acceptance. Reverend James Williams sorrowfully rebuked the abolitionist, declaring, "We admire Frederick Douglass, but we love God more." He was confident that the errant one would change his views when shown the new creed's inherent falsity. Reverend Isaac C. Weir believed that Douglass had received so many ego-building honors and compliments that it was "not surprising that he has fallen." The fifty-year-old ex-slave was also condemned for his stand in opposing the retention of Bible study in the public schools. Douglass believed that the use of the King James version was unfair to Roman Catholics and that church and state should be completely separated. In addition to registering his amazement at Douglass' support of a man-centered theology. Reverend J. Frisby Cooper asserted that barring the Bible from the schools would be the first step in its removal from the nation's churches and courts. Without God's word, the land would be subjected to an age of crime and lawlessness. Surely Douglass' quest for "notoriety" and "popularity" was a "fatal mistake" since it led him to support such a godless position.43 The final list of resolutions agreed upon by the ministers contained a damning condemnation of Douglass' views. In brusque language the clerics wrote, "We will not acknowledge any man as a leader of our people who will not thank God for the deliverance and enfranchisement of our race, and will not vote to retain the Bible, the book of God in our public schools" 44 In a blistering open letter to the Philadelphia Press, Douglass answered the critics by reaffirming his position, denouncing religious intolerance and stating that he would not yield to ministerial pressure. He accused the black ministers of conducting a sham trial, rooted in religious malice that was reminiscent of the Middle Ages. If the ministers would work to reform the "character, manners, and habits" of the "festering thousands" of Philadelphia Negroes, they would do more to prove their churches sound than by "passing any number of worthy resolutions about thanking God."45 By June 1870, Douglass appeared to be resigned to his role of "infidel" and

42 Aptheker, "Letter," p. 279. 43 Foner, Frederick Doug/ass, pp. 270 27); Philadelphia Press, May 19, 1870. 44 Aptheker, "Letter," pp. 280-281; Philadelphia Press. May 19, 1870. 45 Philadelphia Press, May 30, 1870; Foner, Frederick Douglass, p. 272. Frederick Douglass 39

Theodore Parker. Library of Crongress. perfectly convinced that his man-centered beliefs were correct. He wrote.

I have no doubt that the avowal of my liberal opinions will drive many from me who were once my friends and even exclude me from many platforms upon which 1 was a welcome speaker, but such is the penalty which every man must suffer who admits a new truth into his mind. ... I deem it wise to avow those [convictions] which are perfectly formed, clearly defined, and about which I am entirely undisturbed by doubts of any sorts.46 Near the end of his life, a final echo of reliance upon man's power was heard. In a convincing address on the "self-made man," Douglass criticized those who believed the laws of God to be perfect and unchangeable. In fact, he asserted that individuals who ascribed "success and failure, wealth and poverty, intelligence and ignorance, liberty and slavery. . ." to a Supreme Being's actions were superstitious believers in a

'Aptheker, "Letter," p. 278. 40 Maryland Historical Magazine hoax akin to fortune-telling or divination.47 Faith, in the absence of works, was "worth little." 48 Self-made men were "indebted to themselves for themselves.... If they have ascended high, they have built their own ladder." 49 There is little doubt that he considered himself to be in this category—a struggling, yet confident mortal who felt no need of super-natural assistance. Since Douglass' biographers have neglected to analyze, and to a considerable extent, even to record such a change in his religious views, it is necessary to ascertain the reasons for his drift toward a liberal concept of God. He certainly despised those "religious" slaveholders of his youth, but his continuing faith in God and his active church life in New Bedford contradict any assumption that the slavery experience was an exclusive liberalizing force. The influence of Garrison, Parker, and Ingersoll was great, but none of these men remained in close and continual contact with Douglass in the post-Civil War years, the time of his greatest theological change. The Dred Scott decision, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Civil War undoubtedly caused Douglass much heartache. They were influential in modifying his concept of a just Creator who was working convincingly and completely to destroy the ungodly. Nevertheless, other aspects of Douglass' experience must be analyzed before we can find a satisfactory explanation for his gradual abandonment of the traditional Godhead. As he traveled abroad, the ex-chattel discovered that the poverty and destitution of slavery was in many respects a universal condition of the world's lowest classes. This observed contrast between the world's rich and poor deepened Douglass' belief in a religion that best served the interests of mankind to the exclusion of doctrinal complexity and rigidity in the puritanical sense. After viewing Dublin's wretched masses in 1846, he asked, "Where is your religion that takes care for the poor. . . .Where are its votaries—what are they doing?" Douglass answered his own question by noting that believers were "wasting their energies in useless debate on hollow creeds and points of doctrine. . . ." Wrongs and sufferings "of any part of the great family of man" could not be allowed. "I am not only an American slave," he wrote, "but a man, and as such, am bound to use my powers for the welfare of the whole human brotherhood." 50 On a visit to England he could not refrain from criticizing the clergy who had appealed to Liverpool authorities to break up the local soup kitchen. A footpath used by parishoners was continually crowded with multitudes of starving Irish, thus causing "inconvenience" to those on their way to worship.51 Douglass was also depressed by the backwardness of Dominicans and Haitians in

47 Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers, Library of Congress. See also Frederic May Holland, Frederick Douglass: The Colored Orator (New York, 1969. Reprint of 1895 edition), p. 250; Foner, Frederick Douglass, p. 405. 48 Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers; Holland, Colored Orator, p. 252. " Holland, Colored Orator, p. 251; Speech on self-made men, n.d., Douglass Papers. 50 Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, in Liberator, March 27, 1846. 51 Balme, American States, p. 218. Frederick Douglass 41

Robert G. Ingersoll. Library of Congress. the Caribbean. Haiti "was the first to be invaded by the Christian religion. . . . She was the first to see a Christian church and to behold the cross of Christ. She was also the first to witness the bitter agonies of the North bending under the blood-stained lash of Christian slave-holders."52 These thoughts, along with the continual recitation of slavery's evils that his abolitionist career demanded, combined with an ever-present feeling of anti-clerical- ism, were furthered by the Reconstruction era's generally broader view of religious orthodoxy. Together they changed Douglass" mind as to the power of God. In sum, Douglass became more liberal in his view of the Godhead because he was discouraged over the contradiction between Christian theory and practice.53

"Speech at Chicago, January 2, 1893, in Foner, Life and Writings, IV, p. 478. 53 For a more complete discussion of post-Civil War religious thought see Aaron 1. Abbell, The Urban Impact on American Protestantism, 1865-1900 (Cambridge, 1943); Frank H. Foster, The Modern Movement in American Theology (New York, 1939); Charles H. Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism, 1865-1915 (New Haven, 1940). 42 Maryland Historical Magazine

William Lloyd Garrison. Library of Congress.

Constantly recounting the hypocrisy shown by the slaveholder who could "pray at morning, pray at noon, and pray at night" and still "lash up my poor cousin by his two thumbs and inflict stripes and blows upon his bare back, till the blood streamed to the ground! all the time quoting scripture, for his authority . . .," Douglass convinced himself that "prejudice goes into the church of God." According to the pious white Christian, the kingdom of heaven was like a fisherman's net. When the net was drawn ashore, the Christians sat down to cull out the fish. Some of the fish had "rather black scales, so these were sorted out and packed by themselves."54 Even in New Bedford, Douglass encountered hypocrisy among God's servants.

51 Speech at Plymouth County Anti-Slavery Society, Dec, 1841, in National Anti-Slavery Standard, Dec. 23, 1841. Frederick Douglass 43

When he attempted to attend a revival meeting in a white church, he was met by a deacon who told him "in a pious tone, 'we don't allow niggers in here!'"55 While in Scotland he directed his efforts toward exposing the conduct of the Free Church in holding fellowship with slaveholders and in "taking Slave money to build free churches."56 In the 1840's Douglass decided that slavery had "no champions so bold, brave and uncompromising" as the ministers of religion. The Church was "beyond all question, the chief refuge of slavery." 57 By 1870, his belief in the contradiction between Christian theory and practice had developed into a rejection of the Supreme Being. The ministers had done nothing for the abolition of slavery but tell others that "God would abolish slavery in his own good time."58 Too often, in the heat of anti-slavery battle he had been told to trust in God. Now that the struggle was ended, Douglass could not imagine an other-worldly force destroying slavery. He could only thank the men whom he had relied upon throughout the ante-bellum years, men who were not unmindful of the Negroes' plight. In July 1886, Douglass summed up his post-war views of a Christianity whose central character was not now a viable part of his theology. "It is something to give the Negro religion," he wrote. "It is more to give him the ballot. It is something to tell him that there is a place for him in the Christian's heaven, it is more to let him have a place in this Christian country to live upon in peace."59 Douglass' trip toward and through religious liberalism ended in the rejection of God's power and in the veneration of man and his reforms.

55 Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, in Liberator, Jan. 30, 1846. 56 Douglass to Maria Chapman, March 29, 1846, in Foner, Life and Writings. I. p. 144. 57 Speech at London, March 30, 1847, in Foner, Life and Writings, I, p. 214. For Douglass' exceptions to this blanket condemnation see Douglass, Oration, p. 31. 58 Aptheker, "Letter," p. 280. 59 Douglass to W. H. Thomas, July 16, 1886. in Foner, Life and Writings, IV, p. 444. The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism

W. HARRISON DANIEL

1 HE DEVASTATING EFFECTS of the Civil War were probably as severe on Southern institutions as they were upon the populace and the economy of the region. All branches of Protestantism were scarred and afflicted by four years of war. The programs and activities of the different denominations were severely curtailed or suspended during the war. The foreign mission enterprise of all the larger Protestant churches reached a standstill. No new missionaries were sent out, and mission stations in Asia, Africa, and South America were separated from their home churches. Some of the missionaries returned to America, but most of them labored at their task during the war years.1 Some missionaries secured secular employment to earn a livelihood; Young J. Allen, a Methodist, accepted a position with the Chinese government, and Matthew T. Yates, a Baptist, supported himself and another missionary family as a result of his real estate transactions and employment as interpreter for the municipal council of the foreign community at Shanghai. Other missionaries were granted credit by local merchants, making possible their survival. These debts, plus accumulated back salary, resulted in missionary debts for the Southern Baptist Convention and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The Baptists had a foreign missionary debt of $10,000, and the Methodists one of $60,000 when the war ended.2 Domestic mission

'George B. Taylor, Life and Times of James B. Taylor (Philadelphia, 1872), p. 254; Archibald T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia, 1901), pp. 180, 192; Robert E. Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United States (New York, 1895), p. 159; Edgar L. Pennington, "The Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 329; G. MacLaren Brydon, "The Diocese of Virginia in the Southern Confederacy," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Vol. 17 (Dec. 1948), p. 401; The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Reg- ister of Important Events of the Year IS63 (New York, 1869), p. 161; Proceedings of the Southern Bap- tist Convention at its Eighth Biennial Session, Held in the First Baptist Church, Savannah, Georgia, May 10-13, 1861 (Richmond, 1861), pp. 48 55; Gross Alexander, A History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (New York, 1911), pp. 120 125. 2 P. A. Peterson, Hand-Book of Southern Methodism, Being A Digest of the History and Statistics of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, From 1845-1882 (Richmond, 1883), p. 56; Minutes of the Rappahannock Baptist Association, 1864; Minutes of the Rappahannock Baptist Association, May 29-31, 1865; Minute Book of the Roanoke Baptist Association, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia; Charles E. Taylor, The Story of Yates the Missionary, As Told in His Letters and Reminiscences (Nashville, 1898), pp. 147, 150; Alexander, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 262; Taylor, Life and Times of Taylor, p. 270; American Annual Cyclopaedia, 1863, p. 161. Effects of the Civil War 45

programs were also curtailed as the various denominations focused attention upon army missions.3 The exigencies of war prompted churchmen to give increased attention to benevolent programs. Ministers were active in agencies to aid soldiers and to care for their dependents. The Reverend Robert W. Barnwell of South Carolina organized and supervised hospitals in Charlottesville and in Richmond, Virginia, to care for troops from his state.4 C. K. Marshall performed a similar service for Mississippi troops, and M. W. Crumley, a Methodist clergyman, served as superintendent of Georgia hospitals in Richmond from January, 1862, until the end of the war.5 Thomas Caskey, a clergyman, was appointed to direct the soldiers' hospital at Oxford, Mississippi, and the Reverend Thomas Teasdale conducted a canvas in that state to raise funds to establish an orphanage for the children of soldiers. In 1864 a group of ministers in Richmond, Virginia, formed a society to furnish artificial limbs to maimed soldiers.6 All of the denominations appointed committees or formed agencies to solicit funds and supplies for needy soldier families, and in hospital centers like Richmond, Virginia, many ladies of the different churches served as nurses.7 In August, 1861, Stephen Elliott, Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia, issued a pastoral letter to his parishioners. He instructed Protestant Episcopal clergymen in each parish to form an organization to prepare and purchase bandages, clothing, medicine, and foodstuffs for use in military hospitals. Each parish was to submit monthly reports to the bishop, listing the number of articles prepared, collected, distributed, and on hand. Elliott's letter also urged Christians to volunteer their services as army nurses.8

3 See W. Harrison Daniel, "Southern Protestantism and Army Missions in The Confederacy," Mis- sissippi Quarterly, Vol. 17 (Fall, 1964), pp. 179-191. ' James W. Patton, ed.. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Greenville Ladies' Association in Aid of the Volunteers of the Confederate Army (Durham, 1937), p. 20; Minutes of the Bethel Baptist Association, Seventy-Third Anniversary, Held at Beaver Creek Church, Fairfield District, South Carolina, September 26, 1862 (cover to publication missing), p. 5. 5 Report of the Executive Committee of the Georgia Relief and Hospital Association to the Board of Superintendents, with the Proceedings of the Board, Convened at Augusta, Georgia. October 29, 1862 (Augusta, 1862), pp. 3, 9, 32; Augusta, Southern Christian Advocate, Oct. 13, 1864; Charleston, Southern Christian Advocate, Jan. 16, 1862. 6 Thomas W. Caskey, Caskey's Last Book, Containing An Autobiographical Sketch of His Ministerial Life, with Essays and Sermons (Nashville, 1896), pp. 42-43; Thomas C. Teasdale, Reminiscences and Incidents of A Long Life (St. Louis, 1887), p. 185; Petersburg, Army and Navy Messenger, Feb. 1, 1864. 7 Minutes of the Synod of North Carolina, Oct. 29, 1864, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, Montreal, North Carolina; Minute Book of the Fluvanna Baptist Church, Saturday Before the first Sunday, May, 1864; Minute Book of the Mattaponi Baptist Church, January 11, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Lexington Presbytery, Held at Mt. Horeh Church, Sept. 6, 1861, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond, Virginia; Richmond, Christian Observer, Feb. 23, 1865; Minutes of the Forty-Fourth Session of the Alabama Baptist Association, Held with the Bethany Baptist Church, Lowndes County, Alabama, October 9-12, 1863 (Montgomery, 1863), pp. 3, 6; Richmond, Religious Herald, Oct. 2, 1861; Richmond, Richmond Christian Advocate, Sept. 12, 1861; Raleigh, Church Intelligencer, March 28, Nov. 12, 1862; Wyndham B. Blanton, The Making of A Downtown Church (Richmond, 1945) pp. 293-294. 8 Edgar L. Pennington, "The Confederate Episcopal Church and the Southern Soldiers," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 361. 46 Maryland Historical Magazine

An ambitious effort to care for the children of deceased and disabled soldiers was undertaken by the Protestant Episcopal Church in Alabama. This program was inaugurated by Bishop Richard H. Wilmer in the fall of 1864. At this time the Diocese of Alabama established orphanages at Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, and Mobile, and Wilmer created the order of Deaconesses of Alabama to staff them. Rebecca Hewitt was appointed chief deaconess; she and her associates, who served without remunera- tion, labored in the orphanages. They taught and cared for the children and visited the aged and infirm in the parishes.9 In 1862 the North Carolina Synod of the Presbyterian Church appointed a committee to collect funds for the education of soldier orphans; this committee functioned until the end of the war and prompted Presbyterians in other areas to emulate their effort.10 In other instances the church did not undertake the task of caring for soldier orphans until it became obvious that the state was not going to make adequate provisions for the children. In 1863 and 1864 the Baptists in Georgia requested the state legislature to erect an orphanage. When their appeals were not heeded, the denomination, in 1864, organized the Soldiers' Orphanage Association. Trustees were appointed, and H. H. Tucker was named general agent to solicit funds.11 In 1864 the Baptist General Association of Virginia appointed a seven-man committee "to adopt some provisional plan for the education of [soldier orphans] during the next twelve months" and to report at the next meeting of the Association. In a short time a plan was devised and put into operation. The committee decided that the program was to be free from sectarian, sectional, or class restrictions and that an appeal would be made for funds from all citizens, explaining that all monies received would be used to pay the tuition of orphans who would receive instruction in their home areas. The appeal received a favorable response, and in 1865 the corresponding secretary of the committee, A. E. Dickinson, reported that contributions of $200,000 had been received and between 700 and 800 children had been assisted.12 Baptists in other areas also made efforts to care for soldier orphans.13 At a meeting of bishops and other leading churchmen in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, held at Montgomery, Alabama, in the summer of 1864, a resolution was adopted which stated that it was the duty of the church to care for the children of

'Charlotte, Church Intelligencer, December 14, 21, 1864; Walter C. Whitaker. History of the Prot- estant Episcopal Church in Alabama, 1763-1891 (Birmingham, 1898), pp. 168-169. 10 D. I. Craig, A History of the Development of the Presbyterian Church in North Carolina (Rich- mond, 1907), p. 33; Columbia, Southern Presbyterian, Nov. 10, 1864. 11 History of the Baptist Denomination in Georgia, With Biographical Compendium and Portrait Gallery of Baptist Ministers and Other Georgia Baptists (Atlanta, 1881), p. 235; Macon, Christian Index. Sept. 2, 1864. 12 Religious Herald, July 7, 1870; Minutes of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, Held in the City of Richmond, June I, 1865 (Richmond, 1866), p. 30, 13 Christian Index, Feb. 2, 1865; Livingston Johnson, History of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention (Raleigh, 1908), p. 71; Minutes of the Forty-Third and Forty-Fourth Anniversaries of the State Convention of the Baptist Denomination in South Carolina, Held at Darlington, July 24-27, 1863 and at Greenville, July 29-August I, 1864 (Columbia, 1864), p. 206. Effects of the Civil War 47

Rev. L. F. Drake preaching at Camp Dick Robinson, Kentucky, 1861. Library of Congress.

deceased soldiers. Each conference was requested to make provisions for the care of its own orphans and widows. An example of how this resolution was implemented might be seen in the program of the Mobile Conference. This conference created a Soldier's Orphan Association and appointed William W. Wightman, chairman of a twelve-man committee, to direct its operations. The directive of this committee requested that the presiding elders in each district should bring to the attention of their quarterly meetings the needs of orphans. The elders were to secure the names of destitute orphans and suggest places where they might be cared for and placed in school. Funds to support this program were collected in local churches and forwarded to Wightman. His report to the Conference in November, 1864, stated that $13,559 had been received.14 Churches in all areas which were invaded by federal forces suffered from desecration and damage of property. Church buildings, equipment, records, and parsonages were often attacked and destroyed. Evidence seems to substantiate the claim that losses of this type were perpetrated by the federal forces to a degree far exceeding military necessity.15 An Illinois infantryman, writing about the federal

"Richmond Christian Advocate, Aug. 18, 1864; Minutes of the Mobile Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Held in Tuskaloosa, Alabama, November 23-28. 1864 (Mobile, 1864), pp. 10 11. 16 Brydon, "Diocese of Virginia," p. 390; Garnett Ryland, The Baptists of Virginia, 1699-1926 (Rich- mond, 1955), p. 297; Christian Observer, March 5, 1863; Minute Book of the Carmel Baptist Church, Aug.. 1864; Minute Book of the Battle Run Baptist Church, Sept. 13, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the Diocese of Florida, Held in Tallahassee, May 48 Maryland Historical Magazine occupation of Hardeville, South Carolina, said, "Again the work of destroying buildings commenced. A large beautiful church was attacked ... the pulpit and seats were torn out, then the siding and blinds ripped off. . . . Many axes were at work ... it became a pile of rubbish."16 In Mississippi the home and library of Episcopal Bishop William Green were burned by federal troops after the battle of Jackson.17 At Holly Springs, Mississippi, and at St. Augustine, Florida, the invaders used the Episcopal churches for stables. The altars were overturned and used as feed troughs.18 After the battle of Atlanta the basement of the Central Presbyterian Church in that city was used by United States authorities as a slaughterhouse.19 At •Fredericksburg, Virginia, Church Hill, Mississippi, and Helena, Arkansas, Northern soldiers played lewd songs on the church organs, danced in the buildings, and stole the silver communion services.20 Federal troops confiscated the seats, destroyed the pulpit, and "carried off the window sash of the Baptist church in Suffolk, Virginia.21 The Oak Grove Methodist Church in Jackson County, Alabama, was torn down by federal troops and the materials were used to build a pontoon bridge across the Tennessee River. At Corinth, Mississippi, the Christian Church was torn down and the brick used to construct "chimneys and ovens in the camps of Federal forces."22 A Methodist church in Shellmound, Tennessee, was used by Federal soldiers as a "shed for horses," and St. Stephen's Lutheran Church in Shenandoah County, Virginia, was destroyed and the materials used to construct a signal tower.23 Baptist and Methodist church buildings at Newbern, North Carolina, and Charleston, South Carolina, were used as warehouses for the storage of commissary supplies by federal military authorities.24 Some church buildings were used by federal soldiers as

8, 1867 in Si. John's Church, with Sermon Preached by the Rev. Dr. J. J. Scott, in Memory of the Late Bishop Rutledge, Including Proceedings in 1863 and 1866 (Tallahassee, 1867), p. 11; Minutes of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Session of the Yellow River Baptist Association, Held With the Church at Nance's Creek, Dekalb County, Georgia, September 26-28, 1863 (Atlanta, 1863), p. 4. 16 Stephen F. Fleharty, Our Regiment. A Hislorv of the 102nd. Illinois Volunteers (Chicago, 1865). p. 132. "Inventory of the Church Archives of Mississippi, Protestant Episcopal Church, Diocese of Mis- sissippi (Jackson, 1940), p. 32. "Nash K. Burger, "The Diocese of Mississippi and the Confederacy," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 9 (March, 1940), p. 71; St. Augustine, St. Augustine Examiner, Feb. 20, 1869. 19 Haskell M. Monroe, Jr., "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America" (un- published doctoral dissertation. Rice University, 1961), p. 312. 20 Burger, "The Diocese of Mississippi," p. 71; Edgar L. Pennington, "The Confederate Episcopal Church in 1863," The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 52 (Jan., 1951), p. 9; William Junius Wade, "The Origins and Establishment of the Presbyterian Church in the United States" (unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, 1959), p. 451. 21 Minute Book of the First Baptist Church, Suffolk, Virginia, undated item, Virginia Baptist Histori- cal Society. 22 Churches and Institutions of Learning Destroyed By The United Stales Military Forces During the Civil War, But Not As An Act of Military Necessilv, The Materials Having Been Appropriated and Used (Washington, 1912), pp. 6, 8. 23 Ibid., pp. 13, 19. 2* List of War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for use and Occupation or Rent of Church Building, College Buildings, and Other Public Buildings by the Military Forces of the United Slates During the War, Coupled in Some Cases with A Claim for Damages Done to the Building During the Occupancy Effects of the Civil War 49 targets for rifle and artillery practice, and it was reported that at least one church building was taken over by the federals and tenanted with a group of colored women, who were called "wives of United States soldiers."25 Practically all of the church buildings in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Franklin, Tennessee, and Fredericksburg, Virginia, were damaged or destroyed by United States military authorities during the war,26 and numerous churches in other areas were torn down and the materials used to construct barracks.27 It is claimed that in Virginia twenty-six Baptist churches were completely destroyed by federal troops and that throughout the South, United States personnel destroyed or seriously damaged more than sixty Presbyterian church buildings.28 In the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina ten church buildings were burned and three others were "wrecked," and eleven parsonages were destroyed by fire.29 In Knoxville, Tennessee, it was reported that every Methodist church in the city was either destroyed or damaged during the war.30 In addition to destroying church property, federal forces and even Confederate authorities converted many church buildings into hospitals for the sick and wounded.31 Inflation contributed to serious financial problems for the church. As early as with A Statement In Each Case Compiled for Convenience of Members of the Senate Committee on Claims in Connection With An Examination of H. R. 19115 (Washington. 1912), pp. 26, 30. 25 A. Toomer Porter, Led On! Step By Step (New York, 1898), p. 146; Frances Allen Canabiss and James Allen Canabiss, "Religion in Mississippi Since 1860." The Journal of Mississippi History, Vol. 9 (Oct., 1947), p. 199; Joseph Cross, Camp and Field. Books Third and Fourth (Columbia, 1864), p. 340; List of War Claims Including A Few Exceptional Cases of Claims For Churches: Also A List of Other Claims to Which Objeclions Appear, Such as Laches. No Proof of Loyally, Insufficient Evidence As To Facts, Evidence of Payment and Statutory Bars With A Statement of Each Compiled for Convenience of Members of the Senate Committee on Claims in Connection With An Examination ofH. R. 19115 (Wash- ington, 1912), p. 11. 26 List of War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for Use and Occupation or Rent of Church Build- ings, pp. 10, 32, 33, 42, 43. 21 Ibid., pp. 38 54; Churches and Institutions of Learning Deslroved... During the Civil War, pp. 6, 11-13, 15 19. 28 Ryland, Baptist of Virginia, p. 297; Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 311. ^ Report of the Committee on the Destruction of Churches in the Diocese of South Carolina During the Late War. Presented to the Protestant Episcopal Convention, May, 1868 (Charleston, 1868), p. 15. Also see Journal of the Sixty Seventh Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, St. Paul's Church, Richmond, May 21-22, 1862 (Richmond, 1862), p. 31; J. B. Cain, Methodism in the Mississippi Conference, 1846-1870 (Nashville, 1939), p. 359; Ryland, Baptist of Virginia, pp. 297-299; Hugh T. Lefler, "Thomas Atkinson, Third Bishop of North Carolina," Historical Magazine of the Prot- estant Episcopal Church, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1948), p. 428. 30 Hunter D. parish. The Circuit Rider Dismounts, A Social History of Southern Methodism, 1865- /9(W (Richmond, 1938), p. 29. 31 J. L. M. Curry, Civil History of the Government of the Confederate States With Some Personal Reminiscences (Richmond, 1900), p. 174; Eugene Verdery, Jr. and James P. Verdery Papers, James P. Verdery to his sister, February 22, 1864, Duke University Library; Minute Book of the Mt. Poney Bap- tist Church, December, 1862, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Hanover Presbytery at Salem Church, October 24, 1862, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond; Inventory of the Church Archives of Tennessee, Tennessee Baptist Convention, Ocoee Baptist Association (Nashville, 1942), p. 6; Julia J. Yonge, Christ Church Parish, Pensacola, Florida 1827-1927 (n.p., n.d.), p. 21; List of War Claims Confined Entirely to Claims for Use and Occupation or Rent of Church Buildings, pp. 10, 29, 31, 53. 50 Maryland Historical Magazine

September, 1861, some congregations were in arrears on ministers' salaries, and in 1862, many clergymen were receiving the same salary they had received in 1860. Food and clothing, however, were four times as expensive in the fall of 1862 as they had been two years earlier. The religious newspapers and denominational spokesmen urged congregations to increase the salary of their pastor, and some suggested that parishioners make periodic visits to their clergyman and to take him such items as flour, corn, pork, salt, fire wood, and clothing.32 The Methodists were more active than others in urging churches to provide for their pastors. In Mississippi the Port Gibson Quarterly Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, increased the salaries of its pastors from $1200 in 1862 to $4000 in 1864. In December, 1864, the Quarterly Conference of the Sumter Circuit of the Methodist Church in South Carolina voted to provide its pastors with salt, soap, tallow, fire wood, and other provisions for the forthcoming year and to pay them $1,600 in money. This same year the Iredell Circuit of the North Carolina Methodist Conference allowed its preachers provisions which had an aggregate value of $11,900 and which included vinegar, forage, jeans cloth, striped or checked cloth, domestics, and leather.33 The Alabama Diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church increased the salary of Bishop Richard Wilmer from $2500 in 1861 to $3000 in 1863.34 In the summer of 1863, two Presbyterian clergymen in Richmond, Virginia, were given supplements by their congregations. T. V. Moore received $3000 from his parishioners, and Moses D. Hoge was given a supply of coal, flour, meat, and twelve thousand dollars. John L. Burrows, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Richmond, was given a supplement of $13,000 by his congregation in 1864.35 These three cases were given wide publicity in the religious newspapers, and their congregations were described as examples for others to emulate. These cases, however, were exceptional ones; most clergymen suffered as victims of inflation, and many were forced into secular employment. One declared that his people had nothing with which to pay him during the last year of the war; therefore, he decided "to go into partnership with a lawyer."36 All denominational newspapers experienced a lack of funds during the war.

32 W, Stanely Hoole, ed„ "The Diary of Dr. Basil Manly, 1858-1867," The Alabama Review, Vol. 4 (July. 1951), p. 223; Tuskegee, South Western Baptist, Nov. 20, 1862; Richmond Christian Advocate, June 26, 1862; Southern Christian Advocate, Oct. 16, 1862; Christian Index, Nov. 20, 1862; Raleigh, Biblical Recorder, March 4, 1863; Richmond, Central Presbyterian, Nov. 26, 1863; Columbia, Confeder- ate Baptist, Dec. 23, 1863; Columbia, Southern Presbyterian, Dec. 25, 1862; Minutes of the Nineteenth Session of the Aberdeen Baptist Association, Held With The Union Church, Chickasaw County, Mis- sissippi, October II 13, 1862 (Greensboro, 1862), p. 4. 33 Cain, Methodism in Mississippi, p. 390; Willard E. Wight, ed., "Pay The Preacher! Two Letters From Louisiana, 1864," Louisiana History, Vol. I (Summer, I960), pp. 251-252. 31 Walter C. Whitaker, History of The Protestant Episcopal Church in Alabama, 1763-1891 (Birmingham, 1898), p. 155. 35 Columbia, Southern Lutheran, Aug. 15, 1863; Southern Presbyterian, Oct. 6, 1864; Minutes of the First Baptist Church, Richmond, Febr. 20, 1865, First Baptist Church in Richmond, Virginia. 36 Richmond. Central Presbyterian, Dec. 18, 1862; Caskey, Caskey's Last Book, p. 48; Also see Rich- mond Christian Advocate, June 26, 1862; Wight, "Pay the Preacher," pp. 252, 258. Effects of the Civil War 51

St. Paul's hpiscopal Church. Richmond. 1865. Library of Congress.

Inflation, a shortage of materials, and federal occupation forced the suspension of one-half of the religious weeklies in the South by the end of 1862 and the occasional suspension of all of them at sometime during the war.37 Paper which sold for $10.00 a ream in 1861 cost more than $30.00 in 1863, and the costs of printing a denominational weekly increased from $42.00 a week in 1861 to $175.50 in 1863.38 To combat inflation and to conserve materials, those papers which continued to publish, issued half sheets and increased prices. Typical of a paper struggling to exist was the Christian Observer, a Presbyterian weekly published in Richmond, Virginia. On January 3, 1861, the price of the paper was $2.50 a year. In August, 1863. the paper was cut to half size, and the subscription rate was increased to $5.00 a year. Later on May 5, 1864, the price was increased to $8.00, and that fall it was announced that

37 William W. Sweet, The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War (Cincinnati, 1912), p. 129: William W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention. 1845-1953 (Nashville, 1954), p. 46: B. F. Riley, History of the Baptists of Texas (Dallas. 1907). p. 167: Central Presbyterian. May 22, 1862: Richmond Christian Advocate, June 26, 1862: South Western Baptist. March 6, 1862. 38 Sweet, The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Civil War. p. 129: Southern Lutheran. Oct. 31, 1863: Christian Observer. Sept. 17. 1863. 52 Maryland Historical Magazine yearly subscriptions would be $ 12.00. The top rate of $20.00 a year was announced on January 5, 1865.39 Some denominations suffered a heavy financial loss when their presses were confiscated by federal authorities. In February, 1862, federal forces occupied the publishing house of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Nashville, and thereafter used it as a United States government printing house. Its equipment was practically ruined by the end of the war. The Cumberland Presbyterian Printing House in Nashville was also taken over by federal authorities, and it was later dismantled and moved to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In Suffolk, Virginia, the press which published the Christian Sun was confiscated, dismantled, and removed. The building and records of the Presbyterian Committee of Publications and the press which published the Baptist Religious Herald in Richmond were destroyed by fire in April, 1865.40 In many instances the endowments of church colleges and seminaries, since they were invested in Confederate securities, were wiped out. The Presbyterians suffered a severe property loss when the trustees of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina, voted to invest over $250,000 of the institution's endow- ment in Confederate bonds. Presbyterians in Virginia also invested the endowment funds of Hampden-Sydney College and a portion of the endowment of Union Theo- logical Seminary in Confederate bonds.41 The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- nary at Greenville, South Carolina, was impoverished at the end of the war, since its funds had been invested in Confederate bonds. In similar investments two other Baptist institutions, Richmond College and Mississippi College, lost endow- ments exceeding one hundred thousand dollars each.42 The endowment of the Methodist school in Virginia, Randolph-Macon College, and over half of the endowment funds of the Protestant Episcopal Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia, were also invested in Confederate securities.43 These examples are illustrative of the fate of educational endowments during the war. Other aspects of the educational program of the church were affected by the war. Practically all college level instruction ceased as students and faculty went to war, and new colleges which had been planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities, such as the

39 Christian Observer, Jan. 3, 1861, Aug. 12, 1863, May 5, 1864, Nov. 3, 1864, Jan. 5, 1865. 40 Alexander, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 85; The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (128 vols.; Washington, 1880-1901), Series 1, Vol. 52, Part I, p. 686; Cross, Camp and Field, Books Third and Fourth, p. 340; Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States with an Appendix, 1865 (Augusta, 1865), p. 400; Christian Observer, April 14, 1864; Religious Herald, June 25, 1863. 41 Minutes of the General Assembly, 1865, p. 365; Christian Index, May 20, 1864; Francis R. Flournoy, Benjamin Mosby Smith, 1811 1893 (Richmond, 1947), p. 29; Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 207. 42 John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce, D. D., LL. D. (New York, 1893), p. 198; Jesse L. Boyd, A Popular History of the Baptists in Mississippi (Jackson, 1930), p. 118. 43 Richard irby, History of Randolph-Macon College (Richmond, 1882), p. 148; George G. Smith, The Life and Times of George Foster Pierce, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (Sparta, Georgia, 1888), p. 496; Cornelius Walker, The Life and Correspondence of Rev. William Sparrow, D.D. (Philadelphia, 1876), p. 262. Effects of the Civil War 53

Cathedral of St. John, Charleston. Library of Congress. Episcopal school at Sewanee, Tennessee, were not opened. College students were not exempt from conscription law, and as early as May, 1861, many colleges announced the suspension of classes.44 The government's policy of refusing to exempt theological students from military service elicited protests from ecclesiastical leaders. Episcopal Bishop William Meade urged President Jefferson Davis to advocate exemption for students who were studying for the ministry, and the faculties of the Presbyterian seminaries in South Carolina and Virginia petitioned the Confederate government to permit theological students to continue their studies. James P. Boyce, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, requested the Secretary of War to use his influence to secure changes in the conscription law which would permit theological students to pursue their studies.46 All such requests were in vain, and theological seminaries were forced to suspend classes.

44 B. F. Riley, A History oj the Baptists in the Southern Slates East of the Mississippi (Philadelphia 1898), p. 253; South Western Baptist, May 9, 1861; Alexander, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 70. 45 Dunbar Rowland, ed., Jefferson Davis Constitutionalist, His Letters, Papers, and Speeches (10 vols • Jackson, 1923), V, p. 159; Flournoy, Benjamin M. Smith, p. 78; Archibald Thomas Robertson Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia, 1901), p. 94. 54 Maryland Historical Magazine

Some denominational colleges remained open during the war but offered prepara- tory rather than college instruction. Roanoke College did not close but terminated college level classes in 1861. Its war-time student body was composed of youngsters whose parents sent them there as a place of relative safety. In his report to the college trustees on June 12, 1865, President D. F. Bittle said, "During the war we had no regular college classes, most of our students were boys under military age, consequently we had no graduates."46 In North Carolina, Davidson, Guilford, and Trinity colleges were also open during the war but operated on a level similar to that of Roanoke College in Virginia.47 In 1864 at least two church schools, Howard College in Alabama and Mercer University in Georgia, offered free instruction to disabled Confederate soldiers. As a result one hundred and twenty-five veterans were enrolled at Howard College during the year 1864 1865.48 As difficult and uncertain as conditions were during the war, all efforts at higher education were not entirely abandoned by the church. One of the most valiant efforts to continue was made by the Protestant Episcopal Church. When the Episcopal Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia, was occupied by federal authorities in May, 1861, the board of trustees resolved to continue instruction at Staunton, Virginia. Two professors, William Sparrow and Joseph Packard, constituted the faculty, while the class room was the vestry room of the Staunton church. From October, 1861, to May, 1862, the two professors and five students were in Staunton. In May, 1862, Packard returned to his home in Fauquier County, and Sparrow and the students moved to the estate of John T. Clark in Halifax County, Virginia. Later that year, when the fighting in the Valley had subsided and the military threat to Staunton had lessened. Sparrow and the students returned to that town. Sparrow remained there until the end of the war, at times having only one student.49 The buildings of some colleges and seminaries were converted into hospitals for the sick and wounded soldiers of both armies. The buildings of the Protestant Episcopal Seminary were used as a hospital by the United States government from the summer of 1861 until the end of the war. The buildings of Richmond College served as hospital facilities for Confederate troops from Louisiana. At one time or another during the war the buildings of Emory University at Oxford, Georgia, Mount Lebanon University at Mount Lebanon, Louisiana, and Howard College in Alabama were used by the Confederate forces as hospitals.50

"William E. Eisenberg, The First Hundred Years, Roanoke College 1842-1942 (Strasburg, 1942), pp. 92, 98, 112. "Cornelia R. Shaw, Davidson College (New York, 1923), p. 105; Dorothy L. Gilbert, Guilford, A Quaker College (Greensboro, 1937), p. 106; Nora C. Chaffin, Trinity College, 1839-1892: The Beginning of Duke University (Durham, 1950), pp. 219-251; Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 151. "Minutes of the Forty-Third Annual Session of the Alabama Baptist State Convention. Held at Marion, November 10-14, 1865. With an Abstract of the Minutes of the Convention Held in Montgomery, November 11 -14,1864 (Atlanta, 1866), p. 3; Confederate Baptist. May 11, 1864. 4B Walker, Life of Sparrow, p. 256; Joseph Packard, Recollections of A Long Life (Washington, 1902), p. 275. 50 Walker, Life of Sparrow, p. 261; Louisiana Soldiers' Relief Association, And Hospital in the City of Richmond, Virginia. Established August 21-23, 1861 (Richmond, 1862), p. 5; Henry M. Bullock, A His- Effects of the Civil War 55

The drafting of ministerial students and the entrance of numerous clergymen into the army helped to create a shortage of clergymen in Southern Protestantism. Ministers who remained with their congregations were urged by denominational leaders to supply vacant churches and to visit the parishioners of brother clergymen who were absent. In some instances elders and deacons were requested to preach and minister to congregations without a pastor.51 The scarcity of clergymen may be seen by noting the number of ministers admitted to trial or ordained in local areas during the war. In 1862 the Arkansas Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had no admissions for trial. The Presbytery of Charleston, South Carolina, ordained only one man during the four war years. In 1864 the Southern Lutheran declared that there were vacant charges in every synod and area of the South and that the need for home missionaries was as great as the need for army missionaries.52 In the 1840's the two largest denominations in the South—the Methodists and the Baptists—severed connection with their co-religionists in the North and formed sectional organizations. During the war Southern Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians split from their Northern brethren and formed separate organizations. When the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in Philadelphia on May 16, 1861, the war had begun and only sixteen Southern delegates attended; no one was present from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, or Arkansas. The Assembly adopted a resolution, introduced by Gardiner Spring of New York, which pledged allegiance and loyalty to the United States government and to the Constitution. This action prompted all of the Southern presbyteries to renounce their connection with the General Assembly and to form a separate Southern assembly. At a meeting of Presbyterian delegates in Augusta, Georgia, on December 4, 1861, there was created the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, and Benjamin Morgan Palmer was elected moderator.53 In November, 1861, a General Convention of Episcopal bishops and lay leaders assembled in Columbia, South Carolina, and adopted a constitution for the tory of Emory University (Nashville, 1936), p. 149; Minutes of the Sixteenth Annual Session of the Louisi- ana Baptist State Convention, Held With Evergreen Church. DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, July I -4, 1864 (Mount Lebanon, 1864), p. 15; Also see George V. Irons, "Howard College as a Confederate Military Hospital," The Alabama Review, Vol. 9 (Jan., 1956), p. 22. 51 Nashville, Tennessee Baptist, July 13, 1861; Minutes of the Memphis Synod, College Hill, Missis- sippi, Oct. 25, 1862, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; B. F. Riley, A Memorial History of the Baptists of Alabama. Being an Account of the Struggles and Achievements of the Denomination From 1808 to 1923 (Philadelphia, 1923), p. 147; Walter L. Fleming, C;v/7 War and Recon- struction in Alabama (New York, 1905), p. 224; Horace Jewell, History of Methodism in Arkansas (Little Rock, 1892), p. 171; Minutes of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Chickasaw Baptist Association, Held with the Mr. Pleasant Church. Ponlotoc County, Mississippi. September 16-18. 1864 (Meridian, 1865), p. 3; Southern Presbyterian. October 6, 1864; Minute Book of the Coan Baptist Church, March, 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 52 Jewell, History of Methodism in Arkansas, p. 171; Minutes of the General Assembly. 1865. p. 366; Southern Lutheran. Jan. 16, 1864. 53 T. Watson Street. The Story of Southern Presbyterians (Richmond, 1960), pp. 56-59; Thomas C. Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer (Richmond, 1906), p. 242; Thomas C. John- son, History of the Southern Presbyterian Church (New York, 1911), p. 325ff; Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 1607-1861 (Richmond, 1963), pp. 564-567, 571; Benjamin M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell (Richmond, 1875), p. 502. 56 Maryland Historical Magazine

Richmond, 1865. Library of Congress.

Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America.54 During the war seven Lutheran synods in the South severed relations with the General Synod of this church, and in 1863 formed the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Confederate States of America.55 In no instance did the forming of separate denominational organizations involve any change in polity and doctrinal statement by Southerners. The exigencies of war stimulated some denominational cooperation and helped to achieve two denominational mergers. From the fall and winter of 1861-62, the possibilities and problems associated with church union were discussed by the various newspapers and synodical meetings of the different Presbyterian groups in the South; most of the comment was favorable to union.56 In the autumn of 1863, the Independent Presbyterian Church, which was represented by thirteen congregations, merged with the Bethel Presbytery of the Synod of South Carolina and became a part

54 Edward McPherson, The Polilical History of the United States of America, During the Great Re- bellion (Washington, 1876), p. 515. "Charles W. Heathcote, The Lutheran Church and The Civil War (New York, 1919), pp. 93-95. A century later the Presbyterians in America are still divided into separate organizations. The Episcopalian split ended in 1865, and the Lutherans were reunited in 1918. 56 Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," pp. 142 -143, 211. Effects of the Civil War 57 of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. In 1863 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, and the United Synod of the new school Presbyterian Church appointed commissioners to formulate a plan of merger. Representatives from both groups met in Lynchburg, Virginia, on July 24, 1863, and agreed on a plan. After minor alterations the plan was approved by the General Assembly and the meeting of the United Synod. In 1864 the twelve thousand United Synod Presbyterians became a part of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America.57 It appears to have been a common practice during the war for congregations to permit clergymen of other denominations to speak from their pulpit and in time of crisis to share their church building with others. When the Zoar Baptist Church in Virginia was destroyed in 1864, the congregation was given permission to meet, on alternate Sundays, in the Presybterian and Episcopal churches in the vicinity.58 When the Baptist Church at Carter's Run, Virginia, was demolished, the Methodists permitted the members to use their building; and in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Episcopalians were permitted to use the Baptist church for their worship services.59 During the war Baptist preachers often conducted worship services in churches of other denominations, and non-Baptist clergymen were granted permission to preach in Baptist churches.60 Ecclesiastical meetings were restricted, and organizational bonds were weakened during the war. In some areas denominational meetings were suspended entirely; in others they met infrequently. The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which was scheduled to meet at New Orleans in the spring, of 1862, was postponed and did not meet until 1866. The Texas Conference of this Church was without the supervision of a bishop for five years, and Methodist churches in Arkansas were without the services of a bishop for four years. Bishop George F. Pierce expressed regret that he was separated from his conferences by the war; and in Virginia, Bishop John Early explained that it would be impossible for the Western Virginia Conference to meet in 1863. He urged ministers in the Conference to care for the churches "as best they could."61 Numerous presbyteries and synods were prevented from meeting during the war. The Synod of Nashville, which embraced middle and east Tennessee and north Alabama, did not meet in 1862, 1863, and 1864; the Texas Synod did not meet in 1863, since a quorum was not present, and the 1864 meeting was cancelled. Most

57 Ibid., pp. 5, 244-269. 58 Minute Book of the Zoar Baptist Church, p. 88, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. ^^ Minutes of the Shiloh Baptist Association, Held at Alum Spring Church, August 29-30, 1865 (cover to publication missing), p. 5; Minute Book of the Fluvanna Baptist Church, first Sunday in April, 1865, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. e° Religious Herald, Aug. 3, 1863; Central Presbyterian, March 5, 1863; Cecil Johnson, ed.. Auto- biographical Notes by John Lipscomb Johnson {Bou\

'2 Minutes o) the Synod of Mississippi, 1861-1867 (Jackson, 1880), pp. 34, 49; Minutes of the Texas Synod, 1863, 1864; Minutes of the Synod of Nashville, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; Minutes of the Session of the Piedmont Presbyterian Church, Union Theological Seminary Library, Richmond; Christian Observer, Sept. 29, 1864; Wade, "The Origins. . .of the Presby- terian Church in the United States," p. 452. 63 Pennington, "Confederate Episcopal Church in 1863," p. 10; Burger, "Diocese of Mississippi," p. 58; Henry T. Shanks, "Documents Relating to the Diocese of Arkansas, 1861-1865, and Bishop Henry C. Lay Papers," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol. 8 (March, 1939), p. 78. 6'' Boyd. Baptists in Mississippi, p. 1II; J. S. Rogers, History of Arkansas Baptists (Little Rock, 1948), p. 502; Taylor, Life of Taylor, pp. 262, 264. 65 Minute Books of the following Baptist Churches: First Baptist, Richmond, Virginia, March 11, 1862; Leigh Street, April 27, 1863; Hunting Creek, September, 1863; St. Stephen's, October 8, 1865; Bruington, September 6, 1863; Rappahannock Baptist Church, October, 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Synod of South Carolina at its Sessions in 1862 and 1863 (Camden, 1864), p. 54; Session Minutes of the United Presbyterian Church, Richmond, July I, 1864; Minutes of the Session of the Mt. Union Presbyterian Church, September 17, 1863, Union Theological Seminary Library, Rich- mond. Effects of the Civil War 59

Ruins of the Circular Church. Charleston. Library of Congress.

The social instability of a people at war, the absence of clergymen, the scattered nature of many congregations, the destruction wrought by the invaders, and a preoccupation with matters of war had a debilitating influence upon the church. A popular notion that people turn to the church in time of war was not true of the South. The churches experienced no revival enthusiasm similar to that which occurred in the camps. A Methodist observer noted that the excitement of war "took the people's minds off religion," and another historian claimed that the cause of religion declined in the passions and strife of war, and demoralization mounted.66 Alfred Drake, clerk of the Elon Baptist Church in Virginia, wrote, "The war seems... to have demoralized to a great degree all classes of society."67 Ecclesiastical meetings

"Macum Phelan, A History of Early Methodism in Texas. 1817-IS66 (Nashville, 1924), p. 467; Minute Book of the York Circuit, Virginia Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, October 30, 1861, Randolph-Macon College Library, Ashland, Virginia; A. H. Newman, ed., A Century of Baptist Achievement (Philadelphia, 1901), p. 395; Minute Book of the Second Baptist Church, Petersburg, Vir- ginia, Oct. 2, 1861; Minutes of the Rappahannock Baptist Association, 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Minutes of the Seventy-Ninth Annual Session of the Middle District Baptist Association. Held With Mt. Moriah Church. Powhalan County, Virginia, July 29-30, 1862 (Richmond, 1862), p. 10. 67 Minute Book of the Elon Baptist Church, Aug. 3, 1861, Jan. 1862; also see Minute Book of the Second Baptist Church, Petersburg, Virginia, Oct. 2, 1861, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. 60 Maryland Historical Magazine reported that there was a lack of interest in religion, that the people were concerned with the "vanities of this world," and "that a state of coldness and indifference existed in some churches."68 Religious newspapers blamed the war for the demoralization of the churches and for lukewarmness in religion. The Central Presbyterian declared that preoccupation with the war had "brought about a neglect of interest in souls." An Episcopal editor asserted that a general deterioration of public morals was visible everywhere, that the restraints of a Christianized public opinion had been withdrawn, and that men violated the Sabbath as if there were no commandment against such and practiced ethics which no Christian could sanction.69 In this environment all of the major denominations experienced a decline in membership. It has been estimated that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, lost over one-third of its membership during the war. In the same period the membership of Presbyterian churches in North Carolina decreased by more than two thousand; the loss for this church was equally as great in other areas. The Baptists also suffered membership losses; in Georgia the membership and property losses of this denomina- tion were so great that some associations ceased to exist.70 In many areas of the South the ministry of the Church was disrupted by the intimidation of clergymen by federal authorities. When any region came under federal control, it was customary for United States authorities to direct the local inhabitants to subscribe to an oath of allegiance to the United States government. It is claimed that federal authorities were especially diligent in enforcing this directive upon clergymen because they were considered to be Confederate "recruiters" and "morale boosters," and it was thought that they exercised great influence and control over the populace.71 Many ministers complied with the military order and continued to occupy their pulpits. However, from November 30, 1863, to March 23, 1864, the Secretary of War of the United States, Edwin B. Stanton, issued orders to federal commanders in the South to place all houses of worship in their areas "at the disposal" of bishops and

68 Minutes of the Rappahannock Association, July, 1863, Virginia Baptist Historical Society. Minuies of the Middle District Association. 1862. p. 10. "* Christian Index, Oct. 21, 1862, March 18, 1864: Minuies of the General Assembly of the Presby- terian Church in the Confederate States of America With an Appendix. 1864 (Columbia, 1864), p. 292; Minuies of the General Assembly, 1865. p. 380; Central Presbyterian, Aug. 21, 1862; Journal of the Sec- ond Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Texas. Held in Christ Church. Houston, June 9-11, 1864 (Houston, 1864), p. 12; Church Intelligencer, Jan. 11, 1865. 70 John F. Hurst, The History of Methodism (7 vols.: New York, 1902), VI, p. 1285; Parish, The Circuit Rider Dismounts, p. 30; Memorials of Methodism in Macon, Georgia (Macon, n.d.), p. 33; Rich- mond Christian Advocate. Jan. 12, 1865; Minutes of Guilford Circuit, North Carolina Quarterly Confer- ence, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Feb. 11, 1865; Minutes of the Lincolnton Circuit, Quarterly- Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of North Carolina, Nov. I, 1862, Duke University Li- brary; Craig, Presbyterian Church in North Carolina, p. 34; James Stacy, A History of the Presbyterian Church in Georgia (Atlanta, 1912), p. 182; H. M. White, ed., Rev. William S. White, D. D. and His Times. An Autobiography (Richmond, 1891), p. 175; History of the Baptists in Georgia, p. 220. " Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 315; William W. Sweet, Methodism in American History (New York, 1933), p. 289. Effects of the Civil War 61 missionary agents of the various Northern churches.72 President Lincoln was not sympathetic with this policy of the War Department. He did not believe that the government should try to "run the churches" and consequently, the directives of Stanton were only partially enforced. Several months prior to his death Lincoln, by personal order to military authorities, began restoring church property to Southerners.73 It appears that federal authorities had no firm and fixed policy governing the treatment of Southern clergymen. James O. Stedman, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Memphis, never took the oath, but he was permitted to preach and minister to his congregation when that city was within federal lines. Joseph Packard spent most of the war at his home in Fauquier County, Virginia; he was permitted to perform his ministerial duties unmolested and to visit Richmond and Washington. In the fall of 1864, Episcopal Bishop Henry C. Lay was granted permission by federal command- ers, William T. Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant, to pass through military lines to visit and minister to parishioners. Episcopal Bishop Henry F. Green was permitted to cross federal lines to visit a sister in La Grange, Tennessee, and to visit parishioners in Vicksburg and elsewhere in his diocese at the time the area was under federal jurisdiction.74 Howard Henderson, a Methodist clergyman, was given permission to visit and preach in Memphis and Vicksburg at a time when both cities were occupied by federal troops. In 1863 it was reported that in one Lutheran synod twenty-six ministers and churches of this denomination were within federal lines; however, it was noted that all were in a "prosperous condition." In 1864 the Tennessee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, met at City Road Chapel a few miles north of Nashville. Although only fourteen ministers were present, they were all Southern- ers; they were not molested, and they did not repeal the secession resolutions which the Conference had adopted two years earlier.75 It seems that the ministers who were forced to take the oath of loyalty to the United States government or who were removed from their churches were those whose attitude was sullen or hostile, or they were men who persisted in "political preaching" and were uncooperative with the federal commanders. William H. Mitchell, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Florence, Alabama, prayed for the success of Confederate arms when some federal soldiers were attending worship, and he was arrested and

72 McPherson, Political History of the United Slates, pp. 521 522. 73 Monroe, "Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 320; Ralph E. Morrow, Northern Methodism and Reconstruction (East Lansing, 1956), pp. 37-39. This policy was continued by President Andrew Johnson and by the spring of 1866 virtually all Southern church property which has been seized was returned to its original holders. 74 Wade, "The Origins... of the Presbyterian Church in the United States," p. 273; Packard, Re- collections, p. 283; Henry C. Lay, "Sherman in Georgia," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 149 (Jan., 1932), p. 166; Henry C. Lay, "Grant Before Appomattox," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 149 (March, 1932), pp. 337, 340; Burger, "Diocese of Mississippi," p. 66. 75 Christian Advocate, June 9, 1892; Minutes of the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Sessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Virginia and Adjacent Parts [1863, 1864] (Lynchburg, 1864), p. 8; Richmond Christian Advocate, Aug. 18, 1864. 62 Maryland Historical Magazine

Headquarters, United States Christian Commission, Riehmond, 1865. Library of Congress.

imprisoned for six months. When Andrew Johnson was the military governor of Tennessee, he arrested and imprisoned for a short time three Nashville ministers because they prayed for the success of Confederate arms and refused to pray for the government of the United States. When New Orleans was occupied by federal forces, three Episcopal clergymen were arrested and deported to New York City because they refused to pray for the President of the United States; a Presbyterian minister in New Orleans was refused permission to occupy his pulpit and was ordered to leave the city.76 When Knoxville, Tennessee, was occupied by Northern troops in the fall of 1863, a number of Confederate sympathizers were deported to the cotton states, and among them were three ministers. A few ministers in east Tennessee were arrested and sent to

76 Wade, "The Origins... of the Presbyterian Church in the United States," p. 277; Religious Her- ald, July 31, 1862; Minutes of the Memphis Synod, College Hill, Mississippi, October 25, 1862, Historical Foundation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches; Minutes of the Forty-Second Anniversary of the State Convention of the Baptist Denomination in South Carolina, Greenville, July 25 28, 1862 (Columbia, 1862), p. 144; Joseph Cross, Camp and Field. Book Second (Macon, 1864), p. 14; Christian Observer. Nov. 6, 1862; Kate Mason Rowland and Mrs. Morris L. Croxall, eds.. The Journal of Julia LeGrand, New Orleans 1862-1863 (Richmond, 1911), p. 120; Pennington, "Confederate Episcopal Church in 1863," p. 13; 100 Years Canal Street Presbyterian Church. New Orleans, Louisiana, 1847-1947 (n.p., 1947), pp. 12 13. Effects of the Civil War 63 the North as prisoners of war; and in Liberty and Marietta, Georgia, Leesburg, Alexandria, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia clergymen were arrested and imprisoned by federal authorities. Usually this action was prompted by the clergyman's continued prayers for Confederate forces or by his refusal to pray for President Lincoln.77 There is evidence of federal intimidation of some clergymen in many areas of the South; however, "most of the clergymen who fell before the might of Federal authorities were released soon after their arrest and were permitted to continue preaching."78 Perhaps the case of William F. Broaddus might illustrate the treatment of a Confederate clergyman by federal authorities. Broaddus, who was pastor of the Baptist church in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was arrested by federal agents at his home on July 29, 1862, and sent to Washington, where he was imprisoned for two months. During this time he was permitted to have visitors, to read his Bible and newspapers, and to receive mail. He was treated courteously by the officers, and on August 29, was paroled and sent to Richmond as an emissary to secure the release of several imprisoned Union men. The mission was a success, and by the end of September, Broaddus had been released and was back in Fredericksburg performing his ministerial duties.79 Undoubtedly federal authorities would have been pleased to have captured such zealous and "fire-eating" clergymen as Benjamin M. Palmer, James H. Thornwell, and Stephen Elliott. But the most passionate members of the clergy escaped federal agents and were never caught. Those clergymen who were subjected to indignities were the quieter, less zealous men, who did not flee from the enemy but remained to care for their parishioners and to suffer with them. It appears that those Southern clergymen who were arrested and imprisoned were exceptions to the treatment accorded most ministers. The vast majority of Southern clergymen were not molested and were permitted to continue their ministerial duties. Nevertheless, the uncertain- ties which the Church encountered with military authorities and the intimidation which was actual or potential impeded denominational programs and helped to disrupt the function of the Church. As a result of the war all of the denominations faced a major rebuilding task in the spring of 1865.

"James B. Campbell, "East Tennessee During the Federal Occupation, 1863-1865," The East Ten- nessee Historical Society's Publications, Vol. 19 (1947), p. 69; William B. Hesseltine, ed.. Dr. J. G. N. Ramsey, Autobiography and Letters (Nashville, 1954), p. 165; Confederate Baptist, Dec. 7, 1864; Walter L. Fleming, "The Churches of Alabama During the Civil War and Reconstruction," The Gulf States Historical Magazine, Vol. 1 (July, 1902), p. 110; Church Intelligencer, Oct. 19, 1864; Southern Presby- terian, Jan. 12, 1865; Offiical Records, Series I, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 731; Christian Observer, April 10, 1862; Oliver P. Temple, East Tennessee and The Civil War (Cincinnati, 1899), p. 410; Cross, Camp and Field, Books Third and Fourth, pp. 33, 339; Christian Index. March 18, 1862; Christian Observer, Aug. 27, 1863. 78 Henry C. Lay Papers, undated miscellaneous items, University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Whitaker, Episcopal Church in Alabama, p. 164; Southern Christian Advocate, Sept. 22, 1864; Luther F. Addington, The Story of Wise County (n.p., 1956), p. 101; Minute Book of the Ketocton Baptist Church, Sept. 3, 1864; April 1, 1865, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; Monroe, "The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States," p. 318. 1il Diary of William F. Broadus, pp. 6, 8, 9, 24, 33-35, 37, 45, Virginia Baptist Historical Society; William E. Hatcher, The Life ofJ. B. Jeter (Baltimore, 1887), p. 268. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency: James McHenry to Bishop John Carroll, May 16, 1800

John B. Boles*

.l HE REVOLUTION OF 1800" was how Jefferson retrospectively referred to the first spectacular political contest in the young nation, and his political opponents in 1800 anticipated his election in just such terms. Even though later historians have shown that Jefferson's election was not revolutionary in the French sense, they have generally agreed that it was a significant turning point in American history. For the first time control of both the executive and legislative branches of the government was transferred from one powerful coalition to another. It was the first genuine pa/^v contest for political power, and the Jeffersonians wrestled the reins of government away from the Federalists without bloodshed. For a generation that had lived through both the American and French revolutions, the successful transfer of polit- ical leadership without resort to arms was remarkable evidence of the uniqueness of the American experiment. Yet despite this emphasis on gentle change, the election of 1800 was probably the most bitterly contested in American history. Jefferson was maliciously attacked as an atheist and Jacobin radical intent on destroying the fundamental structure of Amer- ican government. Less familiar to the general reader of this Magazine was the equally acrimonous attack against John Adams by critics within his own party. They re- sorted to political intrigue of the basest sort in their attempt to swing the election to Charles C. Pinckney, whom they considered more malleable to their own beliefs. Failing that, they tried to manipulate the electoral vote in the House of Representa- tives in such a fashion as to name Aaron Burr, not Jefferson, the third president. In neither attempt were the "High Federalists" successful, and Jefferson's victory ulti- mately destroyed their party. James McHenry, an amiable Marylander, played a tangential but revealing role in these activities, and the letter from him to Bishop John Carroll, in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, first published below after an introduction, sheds some light on the extent of his participation.1

* The author wishes to express appreciation to his wife, Nancy G. Boles, Professor Joseph W. Cox, Mr. and Mrs. P. W. Filby, and the Reverend John J. Tierney for their helpful suggestions. 'The Reverend John J. Tierney brought this letter to my attention, and suggested that it be printed, with appropriate introduction, in this Magazine.

64 Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 65

The incumbent Federalists were clearly in political trouble when the election year began.2 Their popularity had peaked with the indignant American reaction to the XYZ affair, when the French had rebuffed three American diplomats. The pro- French Jeffersonian Republicans, or Antifederalists as Hamilton and his friends still called them, were embarrassed by the French action. But the Federalists soon frittered away their popularity. The repressive Alien and Sedition Acts irritated many, and Jefferson and his followers used the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to solidify the opposition and cement it behind the Republican cause. The Federalists expanded the army and navy in expectation of an imminent French war (and, as they hoped, an opportunity to squelch for good their domestic rivals), and the resultant taxes were very unpopular. In addition, there were the normal political liabilities engendered by a parly in power for three terms. To make matters even less hopeful for the Federalists, the Jeffersonians had been developing their state organizations for several years and were united in support for the head of their party. The Federalists had still other problems. Alexander Hamilton had long been the de facto leader of the party, and as long as Washington was alive—he was, Hamilton once stated, "an aegis very necessary to me"—Hamilton was able to use the ex- President's prestige to hold the Federalist factions together. John Adams, a stub- bornly independent man, had always chafed under this mantle of deference. Out of respect for Washington, and in an attempt to avoid interparty conflict, Adams had continued several of Washington's cabinet members in office; they, of course, owed their loyalty to Washington and took their orders from Hamilton. All Federalists had basked in unaccustomed popularity after the XYZ uproar, but as war loomed ominously closer, Adams courageously broke with the more partisan Federalists and, valuing peace above party, decided in February 1799 to send a peace mission to France. The Hamilton Federalists feared such a move would jeopardize relations with England, would cause their war-crisis appeal to evaporate, and would lead to a diminution of the army which they controlled. The Hamiltonians also thought Adams's peace policy was an unprincipled and demagogic attempt to court the sup- port of the Jeffersonians, selling out principle for partisan gain. Adams moreover made this diplimatic move without consulting either Hamilton or the Washington appointees in the cabinet, infuriating the Hamiltonians no end. Then in December Washington died. Hamilton knew his main prop was gone, and Adams saw the

2 A great deal has been written on this election and its background. See William Nisbet Chambers, Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1809 (New York, 1963), chap. 8: Noble E. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801 (Chapel Hill, 1957), chaps. 7-9; Charles A. Beard, Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy {New York, 1915), chap. 13; Stephen G. Kurtz, The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism. 1795-1800 (Philadelphia, 1957), chaps. 16-17; John C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton & the Growth of the New Nation (New York, 1959), chap. 33; Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston, 1962), chaps. 27, 29-30; Joseph W. Cox, Champion of Southern Federalism: Robert Goodloe Harper of South Carolina (Port Washington, N. Y., 1972), chap. 10; and for a good summary. Noble E. Cunningham, "Election of 1800," in The Coming of Power: Critical Presidential Elections in American History, ed. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (New York, 1972), pp. 33-66. The best general discussion for Maryland is Edward G. Roddy, "Maryland and the Presidential Election of 1800," Md. Hist. Mag., 56 (Sept. 1961), pp. 244-268. None of these accounts have emphasized the role of James McHenry. 66 Maryland Historical Magazine

James McHenry. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society. chance to become his own man in the Presidency. Ugly schism appeared among the Federalists; the tense election year would see the party split apart. The memory of Adams's close victory over Jefferson in the electoral college vote of 1796 set the stage for the campaign intrigue of 1800. Adams had won by seventy- one to sixty-eight, and he did so by winning every vote in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and the five New England states. He won a seven to four split in Maryland and gained one vote in both Virginia and North Carolina. The key to an easy Federal- ist victory again was the twelve electoral votes of New York. In that state, as in ten others, the presidential electors were named by the state legislature. Obviously who- ever controlled the legislature could determine a state's vote for president. Since the congressional elections were held throughout 1800, the presidential campaign in ef- fect extended for many months. As New York's election was relatively early (the polls were open April 29-May 1), the outcome in that pivotal state could very easily influence the ensuing state polls. After a bruising political battle, with Aaron Burr indefatigably organizing and cajoling his allies, and Hamilton doing the same with his, the Republican forces of Burr carried the entire ticket in New York City. Hence their control of the new state legislature was assured. For Hamilton this was an es- pecially heavy blow, since not only was New York a kingpin in the election, but it was Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 67

Thomas Jefferson. Marvland Historical Societv- his home and the base of his political operations. And now the opposition had won! Such an outcome moved Hamilton to desperate maneuvers. Hamilton quickly wrote a long letter to John Jay, Governor of New York, sug- gesting a way to retrieve at least part of the Empire State's electoral votes for the Federalists.3 Hamilton proposed that Jay call a special emergency session of the Federalist controlled legislature before the new congressmen met and constituted the new Republican legislature. This special session could quickly change the elec- tion rules, taking selection of presidential electors out of the hands of the legislature and requiring them to be chosen by the people in election districts. In this manner the Federalists, who did have a majority in some districts, would prevent all twelve electoral votes from going to Jefferson. Certainly this was a shady attempt to under- mine the established form of government for party ends; certainly it was an effort to refute the mandate of the congressional election; but for Hamilton the stakes were supremely high. To risk losing New York was to risk the Federalist achievement in government. Given the stakes, Hamilton argued to Jay, "it will not do to be over-scrupulous. // is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of society by a strict adherence to ordi- nary rules." He was not, he cautiously emphasized, suggesting anything actually illegal, but this was an "extraordinary . . . crisis." Given the alternative—"an athe- ist in religion, and a fanatic in politics"—steps just short of being unconstitutional should be taken. The Jeffersonian party included some who would so weaken the government that it would collapse, and still others who would produce "a REVOLU- TION, after the manner of BONAPARTE." The "particular nature of the crisis and the cause of social order... ." justified, in his overwrought mind, going be- yond the normal bounds "of delicacy and decorum."4 Governor Jay quietly refused

3 Alexander Hamilton lo John Jay, May 7, 1800, in Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (12 vols.: New York and London, 1904), X, pp. 371-374. 'Ibid., pp. 372, 373, 374. 68 Maryland Historical Magazine to stoop to such measures of expediency. Hamilton and the Federalists, however, had another more secret, more disingenuous plot to win the election away from both Jefferson and the incumbent Federalist president, John Adams. No sooner had the election outcome in New York become known than the Fed- eralist Congressmen, convening in the national capitol, Philadelphia, met in caucus to arrange the party ticket for the presidency. Undoubtedly Hamilton had dis- cussed this exigency before, for the caucus enacted his plan before he could arrive from New York. The Hamilton faction within the Federalist party had long been suspicious of Adams, but Adams's sending of the delegation to France made the suspicion public. In 1799 Hamilton had briefly complained to Washington of Adams's diplomacy,5 and James McHenry soon thereafter confided to the ex-Presi- dent: "The prevailing rumor has, no doubt, reached you, of disagreements in the cabinet; or that a difference of opinion exists between the President and the heads of departments, relative to the mission to France. I am sorry to inform you, that there is too much foundation for this report." He then criticized Adams's decision, and re- ported that Adams was displeased with him, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, all of whom Adams had inherited from Washington's administration. "Whether he will think it expedient to dismiss any, or how many of us, is a problem. . . . There are, however, powerful personal reasons, especially at this juncture, which forbid it; and it is more than possible, as these chiefly respect the eastern quarter of the Union, they will prevail."6 As McHenry suspected, Adams still hoped in the fall of 1799 to prevent a complete rupture with the Hamilton faction, for he correctly believed that only a united party could possibly defeat Jefferson in 1800. So Adams controlled his spleen and perse- vered with the disloyal cabinet members who took their orders from Hamilton. By the early spring of 1800, however, the eventual split was becoming more obvious. In March William Bingham wrote of the "Schism which has taken place between the President & some of his friends on the Subject of the French mission"; four days later Robert Troup described "a decided and deep rooted disgust with Mr. Adams on the part of his best old friends. I understand from correct authority that the Eastern delegation in Congress, almost entirely, if not wholly, believe that the preservation of the federal cause essentially depends on removing Mr. Adams and appointing a more discrete man to the Presidency."1 Surely this "correct authority" was Alexander Hamilton, for he had already be- gun to prepare the ground for an election harvest resulting in Pinckney as president. Such a plan required secrecy, for enough doubt in Adams's ability must be produced

' Hamilton to Washington. Oct. 21, 1799, in ibid., p. 356. 6 McHenry to Washington, Nov. 10, 1799, in George Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Wash- ington and John Adams. Edited from the Papers of Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury (2 vols.: New York. 1846), II, pp. 281-282. 7 Wm. Bingham to Rufus King, March 5, 1800, and R. Troup to King, March 9, 1800, in Rufus King. The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, ed. Charles R. King (6 vols.: New York, 1894-1900), III. pp. 205, 208. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 69 to secure a strong co-candidate to whom the election could be swung, and yet this undercover campaign must not be made so public as to win Jefferson votes from disgruntled Adams supporters. As Hamilton wrote Theodore Sedgwick, Federalist Speaker of the House, on May 4, 1800 (just after the results of the New York elec- tion were known), "To support Adams and Pinckney equally is the only thing that can possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson."* Of course Hamilton's proposal was disingenuous, as Sedgwick, Pickering, Rufus King, Wolcott, McHenry, and the other Hamilton Federalists knew but which they hoped to conceal from the majority of Federalist politicians. According to the Con- stitution, the two candidates with the highest number of electoral votes were respec- tively president and vice president (if there were a tie, the House would decide). There was no separate vote for vice president. Presidential electors cast two ballots for president, and no differentiation being made in the voting, the recipient of the most votes was president. If all the Federalist electors in New England, New Jersey, and Delaware voted equally for Adams and Pinckney, each candidate would have forty-nine votes. Assuming the pair could win a handful of votes in Maryland and North Carolina, where the electors were popularly elected. Federalist victory would hinge upon South Carolina even though New York had been lost. If the South Carolina legislature would agree to vote equally for Adams and Pinckney, then they would be tied, and Jefferson defeated. If the vote in fact was tied, Hamilton believed he could persuade the House to select Pinckney, but he planned to have one or more of the Federalist electors, once the election was sure, throw away their Adams vote, giving the election to the South Carolinian. Even if South Carolina, voting late in the year, gave its votes to Jefferson and Pinckney—which was deemed very possible— then it was hoped Jefferson and Pinckney would have an equal number of electoral votes, and the House would safely choose the Federalist. This was the complicated Hamiltonian plot to defeat both Adams and Jefferson and win the presidency for Charles C. Pinckney, whom Hamilton believed he could easily dominate. The entire plan required utmost secrecy, for if any fervent New England supporters of Adams got wind of the scheme, they might withhold their second ballots from Pinckney. Or, if any of these New England electors had reason to doubt that South Carolina would honor the caucus agreement to support both candidates equally, they would obviously leave Pinckney off their ballots. Then suspicious South Caro- linians might not vote for Adams. The result of the plan being known would be a Jefferson victory. So Hamilton and his co-conspirators began a campaign of duplic- ity, publicly supporting Adams and Pinckney equally, while carrying on an under- ground correspondence planting seeds of distrust about Adams without completely repudiating him. Theodore Sedgwick echoed Hamilton in his letter to Rufus King: "We have had a meeting of the whole federal party, on the subject of the ensuing election & have agreed that we will support, bona fide, Mr. Adams and General

'Quoted in Cunningham, "Election of 1800," p. 43. 70 Maryland Historical Magazine

John Carroll. Maryland Historical Society.

Pinckney. If this agreement be faithfully executed we shall succeed, but otherwise we cannot escape the fangs of Jefferson."9 John Adams was aristocratic, aloof, and crotchety, but he was no fool. For the first three years of his presidency his freedom of action had been limited by the Hamilton-Washington clique. Gradually there had developed a more moderate

9 Sedgwick to King, May 11, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 238. See also Timothy Pickering to King, May 7. 1800, in ibid., p. 232. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 71

Adams faction in the Federalist party which represented a coalition of Adams sup- porters and southern Federalists like John Marshall, Charles Lee, and Patrick Henry.10 With the French threat immediate and the Jefferson campaign on the hori- zon, Adams had attempted to restrain his differences with the Hamilton Federalists both within and outside his cabinet. He feared an open break with them would destroy his chances of reelection. But then in December 1799 Washington died, de- priving Hamilton of his patron, and by early May the Hamilton forces were out- polled in New York, depriving Hamilton of his political power base. Adams saw his opportunity to separate from the weakened Hamiltonians, remove those disloyal to him from his cabinet, and thus solidify his position with the moderate and southern Federalists. He would also engage in political activities very near open campaigning to increase his popular support. For these reasons, and against this partisan background, John Adams's pent-up anger toward his disloyal Secretary of War exploded in early May, 1800. McHenry had come for a routine conference, but when he arrived, Adams's emotions momen- tarily so overcame his limited tact that he subjected McHenry to a strong dose of jus- tified indignation. McHenry was deferential, and Adams was quickly sorry for his outburst, but the Secretary of War knew his tenure was effectively over. McHenry offered his resignation on May 6, 1800." At the same time Pickering's resignation was requested; when he refused, Adams dismissed him. Both were replaced with appointees supportive of Adams, as the Attorney General, Charles Lee, and the Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Stoddert, had been advising. The Hamilton Fed- eralists expanded this episode into a caustic attack on Adams. McHenry, with whom we are concerned, pretended to have been oblivious to the real reasons he was fired. In his letter to Bishop Carroll, below, and in a similar letter to his nephew, John McHenry, he presented the President in a most unfavorable light, dismissing long- time public servants for light and transient causes after an unjustified outburst of anger, pique, and jealousy.12 Surely McHenry recognized that there were legitimate reasons for his removal—he had expected it as early as November 179913—and he publicly disagreed with Adams's sending the mission to France. His less than frank letter to Bishop Carroll was clearly designed to destroy trust and respect in the pres- idential stature of John Adams. McHenry's comments to Carroll implying that Adams was paranoid in suspecting the intentions of the Federalist caucus show this, for McHenry obviously knew what Hamilton was intriguing.

'"The best account of Adams Federalists versus Hamilton Federalists is Kurtz, Presidency of John Adams. See also George Cabot to [Christopher] Gore, Jan. 21, 1800, in Henry Cabot Lodge. Life and Let- ters of George Cabot (Boston, 1877), pp. 268-269. 11 A good description of this outburst is in Page Smith, John Adams (2 vols.: Garden City, N. Y., 1962), II, pp. 1027-1028. The date of McHenry's resignation is incorrectly given as the spring of 1799 in Roddy, "Maryland and the Presidential Election of 1800," p. 245n. 12 The letter to Bishop Carroll, May 16, 1800, is printed below; the letter to John McHenry. May 20, 1800, is reprinted in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, pp. 346 348. "McHenry to Washington, Nov. 10, 1799, in ibid., pp. 281-282. 72 Maryland Historical Magazine

The Hamiltonians desperately attempted to use what they portrayed as the com- pletely unjustified firing of McHenry (and Pickering) to discredit Adams, and in their own minds, overwhelmed with fear that men of their kind would no longer con- trol the government, they perhaps sincerely convinced themselves that Adams had acted tyrannously. In fact, McHenry was both disloyal to the administration and incompetent for the job. When arguing with Washington in 1792-93 to force Jefferson to resign as Secretary of State, "Hamilton had laid down the principle that, he said then, ought to govern the conduct of members of the Cabinet—implicit obedience to the President or resignation. Unity, energy and responsibility were impossible, he asserted, without the subordination of the heads of the departments to the Chief Executive."14 That McHenry obeyed Hamilton dutifully is evident in Hamilton's correspondence. In March 1797 Hamilton sent McHenry a list of specific things to do: "Increase the revenues vigorously and provide naval forces for convoys. Purchase a number of vessels now built the most fit for sloops-of-war and cutters.... Form a provisional army of 25,000 men. . . ." Hamilton was running the war department through a weak McHenry. As Hamilton concluded, "1 am really, my friend, anxious that this should be your plan. Depend on it, it will unite the double advantage of si- lencing enemies and satisfying friends. I write you this letter on your fidelity. /Vo mortal must see it or know its contents."15 Thus Hamilton secretly "advised" McHenry and, in modern presidential parlance, stroked his vanity. Hamilton and his friends also recognized McHenry's limitations. Hamilton him- self observed to Washington: "my dear friend McHenry is wholly insufficient for his place, with the additional misfortune of not having himself the least suspicion of the fact. . . you perhaps may not be aware of the whole extent of this insufficiency. It is so great as to leave no probability that the business of the War Department can make any tolerable progress in his hands."16 Washington was aware, however, for he agreed that McHenry was "unequal to great exertions or deep resources."17 Oliver Wolcott, the pro-Hamilton Secretary of the Treasury, concurred, writing to Fisher Ames that McHenry was "not skilled in the details of Executive business."18 Knowing McHenry's lack of both competence and loyality to the president, the Hamiltonians could not have been insensitive to Adams's action. Yet they correctly sensed that in so dismissing him and Pickering, Adams was throwing down the gauntlet and taking the offensive to assure his reelection. They therefore stepped up their letter-writing campaign, coyly advocating the support of both Adams and Pinckney while hinting to certain influential men that Adams was less desirable

" Miller, Alexander Hamilton, p. 517. 15 Hamilton to McHenry, March 22 (?), 1797, in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, pp. 241-243. Cf. Hamilton to McHenry, Aug. 25, 1798, in ibid., pp. 317-318. 16 Hamilton to Washington, July 29, 1798, in ibid., pp. 302-303. 17 Quoted in Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: The National Adventure, 1788-1804 (New York, 1962), p. 438. "Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, p. 315. Bernard Steiner, in his Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, 1907), minimizes his faults. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 73

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Maryland Historical Society. than Pinckney. McHenry, now completely put out with the President, contributed to this campaign. Oliver Wolcott, not sure of McHenry's diligence in the cause, exhorted "If you will but do your part, we shall probably secure General Pinckney's election."19 Four days later McHenry replied to Wolcott, cautiously marking his letter "private." He worriedly reported that many of the Maryland Federalists, who earnestly wanted "to act right, and to place in the presidential chair a truly federal character," misunderstood the plan. They were actually operating on the assumption that "fair and honourable endeavours should be used by them ... to obtain concur- rent votes for Mr. Adams and Mr. Pinckney."20 He frankly doubted that the secret scheme to depose Adams would work. Yet he concluded:

" Wolcott to McHenry, July 18, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, 11, p. 381. 20 McHenry to Wolcott, July 22, in ibid., p. 385. 74 Maryland Historical Magazine

I may possibly satisfy some of our most prominent characters that the peace and prosperity of our country have been brought into jeopardy by the present chief to answer electioneer- ing purposes; thai under a government dissimilar from that of the Great Frederic, like him he would be every thing, and do every thing himself; that he wants the prudence and discre- tion indispensable to enable him to conduct with propriety and safety even the colloquial intercourse permitted between a President and foreign ministers; that he is incapable of ad- hering to any system, consequently must be forever bringing disgrace upon his agents and administration, that his foibles, passions, and prejudices, are of a stamp which must ex- pose him incessantly to the intrigues of foreigners, and the unprincipled and wickedly am- bitious men of either party; and that the high and dearest interests of the United States cannot possibly be safe under his direction.21

It was in this vein, and in contemplation of this election strategy, that James Mc- Henry wrote to Bishop John Carroll on May 16, 1800. McHenry began with a refer- ence to Reverend Mr. Rivet, a French Catholic missionary to the Ouabache and Illinois Indians who was stationed at Post Vincennes. Since the early 1790s George Washington had been interested in acculturating the Indians on the frontier. Bishop Carroll in 1792 had offered Catholic priests to help perform such a religious and civilizing function, and Washington replied that the Indian wars in process made such an offer impossible to accept just then, but he concluded by expressing his opin- ion

that the most effectual means of securing the permanent attachment of our savage neigh- bors is to convince them that we are just, and to shew them that a proper and friendly inter- course with us would be for our mutual advantage; I cannot conclude without giving you my thanks for your pious and benevolent wishes to effect this desirable end, upon the mild principles of Religion and Philanthropy. And when a proper occasion shall offer, I have no doubt but such measures will be pursued as may seem best calculatued to communicate liberal instruction, and the blessings of society, to their untutored minds.22

General "Mad" Anthony Wayne's victory at Fallen Timbers in 1794 soon made possible the kind of missionary activities both the President and the Bishop desired. The administration began a policy of paying a government allowance of $200 annu- ally to such missionaries who were, in McHenry's words, "humanising and moral- ising the Indians" and reconciling them "to our Government and interests."23 Ap- parently bureaucratic lapses often caused delays in paying the missionaries, for in June 1796 McHenry had written Bishop Carroll that steps were being taken so that Rivet would "in future receive his pay more regularly and in specie."24 Again in the letter here reprinted, the outgoing Secretary of War assured Bishop Carroll that

21 Ibid., p. 386. 22 Washington to Reverend John Carroll, April 10, 1792, in The Wriiings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (39 vols.: Washington, 1931-44), XXXK, p. 20. 23 M. Annabelle Melville, John Carroll of Baltimore: Founder of the American Catholic Hierarchy (New York, 1955), pp. 167-168; and McHenry to Bishop Carroll, May 29, 1796, in Steiner, Life of Mc- Henry, p. 172. 24 McHenry to Bishop Carroll, June 12, 1796, in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 75

Alexander Hamilton. Maryland Historical Society. even though he was leaving the office he would see to it that Mr. Rivet was duly paid. McHenry then recounted the progress of the election year, mentioning the Federal- ist defeat in New York and the election controversy in Pennsylvania. The remainder of the letter gave a rather jaundiced picture of Adams—he was not well liked, was suspicious, distrustful, apprehensive, impassioned, jealous, impolite. McHenry casually mentioned that these confidential revelations might also be shown to the estimable Charles Carroll of Carrollton. The obvious intent was to secure his sup- port for the anti-Adams faction in the Maryland election. The following is an exact transcription of the letter.

Philadelphia 16 May 1800 Dear Sir. I received yesterday the enclosed letter from your good missionary the Revd. Rivett. It is long since an arrangement was made relative to his pay which I have no doubt is ready for his order. I shall however, before my leaving the office enquire of the Pay-Master Gen- eral who is here, whether my directions on the subject have been executed, and at all events enforce them. By the latest information from New York, it is reduced nearly to a certainty, that the antifederal ticket has prevailed throughout the State, by a small majority. You will add to 76 Maryland Historical Magazine

this, the influence which certain characters among those elected must enjoy, in a popular assembly (who chuse the electers of the President) over inferior abilities, and men without the opportunity to be rightly informed, or penetration to know when they are so. It is also a problem, what kind, of [or] if any, compromise will take place between the two parties in Pennsylvania on the subject of a district election law, and if a law is agreed to, for whom the federal Pensylvanians [sic] will vote on the occasion.25 The Eastern representatives to Congress will return generally speaking to their respec- tive states more indisposed to, than deserous of the election of Mr. Adams; the South Caro- lina federalists, equally if not more averse to his succeeding, and with the most decided inclination for general Pinckneys success. 1 hope that you will not think that any or all of these circumstances induced my resigna- tion at so very important a crisis. 1 will mention to you in confidence what led to this event, which you may communicate to our estimable Mr. [Charles] Carroll [of Carrollton] under the same restriction. We have had for some time, as the Aurora26 expressed it, a disjointed cabinet. In other words, Mr. Wolcott, Mr. Pickering and myself were decidedly of opinion, that the mission to France might have been dispensed with. We thought the situation in which the Country then was, the most desirable in which it could be placed or kept during the existence of the war in Europe, or between England and France. The President thought otherwise, and could be well with nobody who did not think well of the mission. Upon second thoughts Mr. Stodderl and Mr. Lee27 thought as he did. From this moment I began to see a dissolution of the ministry, if we may so call the heads of Departments, and [to] scent workings to produce it. Stoddert you know is pretty dexterous at intrigue. 1 was not however, at least I so per- suade myself, marked out by him, but became, without any agency of his necessarily in- volved in the execution of the plan to secure the Presidents election. The President more particularly of late felt exceedingly alarmed for his election, and every day more and more distrustful of those heads of departments who were not constantly feeding him with some news respecting it. In this state of his mind, and while the issue of the election in New York was dreaded.

25 In 1796 as in previous presidential elections, the Pennsylvania electors had been selected at large. The Federalists, who controlled the state senate in 1800, recognized that a similar method would give all or most of the state's electoral votes to Jefferson, so they determined to change the method and have the legislature choose them. The Republican majority in the house wanted to continue the old process. This congressional dispute continued throughout late 1799 and most of 1800, resulting in a solid stalemate. On October 14. 1800. the state congressional elections were held, producing a Republican victory in the con- test. But by this date there was no time for popular election of the presidential electors; the congress would have to choose. And despite Republican successes in the October election, the Federalists still had a slim majority in the senate. The stalemate continued. Not until late November did the conference committee work out a compromise whereby eight Republican and seven Federalist electors were chosen, giving Penn- sylvania in effect only one vote. Since the Republicans won ten of thirteen Congressional seats that year, the Pennsylvania electoral vote gravely under represented the actual Republican sentiment of the state. Harry M. Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 1790 -1801 (Harrisburg, Pa., 1950). pp. 243-252. 26 The Philadelphia Aurora, edited first by Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of the famous Franklin, and later by William Duane, was ferociously anti-Federalist. Only death prevented the scurrilous Bache from being tried for libel. 27 Benjamin Stoddert (1751 1813), from Maryland, was the first Secretary of the Navy, and Charles Lee (1758-1815), from Virginia, served as Attorney General from November 1795 to 1801, when Jefferson was inaugurated. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 77

George Washington. Maryland Historical Society.

which every one said was to be decisive of his election, the federal members of Congress held a caucus as it is called, in which with very few exceptions it was determined, that each in his State would use his best endeavours, to have Mr. Adams and Major Genl. Pinckney run for President, without giving one a preference to the other. This necessarily increased his apprehensions to their heighth, and rendered him on the evening of the 5th instant (to me who had known nothing about the caucus) indecent and at times outrageous. General Washington had saddled him with three Secretaries. There was no bounds to his jealosy or rude concerns. In short the conversation ended in my resignation next morning, to take place at my request the 1st of June. Mr. Pickering was thrown out a few days after. Mr. Wolcott is retained, only because the President is affraid, were he to be dismissed or forced to resign, of derangements in the affairs of the Treasury. I will give you more particulars when 1 have the pleasure to see you which I hope will be soon. I am my Dear & respected sir very truly & af[fec]t[ionate]ly yours. James M.Henry Right Rev. Bishop Carroll

Bishop Carroll was politically conservative, identifying—as did so many others of his social class—the Federalist party with the cause of religion. Expediency alone would have required him to support the governing establishment. But there were other reasons as well; George Washington seemed the very model of the upright, honest, Christian leader, and he had supported the French missionaries on the fron- tier. Correspondingly, Bishop Carroll associated the Republican party with those 78 Maryland Historical Magazine advocates of the French Revolution who were vigorously anticlerical and anti- Catholic. So McHenry, who was a friend of the Bishop, safely assumed that Bishop Carroll supported the Federalists; subtle letters would, he hoped, ensure that Carroll would use his influence for the right Federalist candidate. Likewise Charles Carroll of Carrollton, wealthy, educated, and the epitomy of Maryland aristocracy, was a dependable Federalist. These were the kind of leaders whose correct position was a prerequisite if the Hamilton plan were to succeed. And it seemed to McHenry, on September 1, 1800, that he had planted the seeds well, for he wrote that "a friend of mine, at my instance, visited Charles Carroll, of Carrollton ... and informs me .. . that he considered [Adams] totally unfit for the office of President and would sup- port, as much as he could, the election of General Pinckney."28 In the summer of 1800 another Federalist ploy was begun in Maryland that went beyond letter writing. Since 1795 presidential electors in the state had been popularly chosen by district, which meant, as the Republicans were growing in support, that at least several electors would be pledged to the Republican candidates. If the electoral method were changed to allow the legislature to choose the electors, then a Federalist controlled legislature could deliver electors pledged to Adams and Pinckney. After all, the Republicans in nearby Virginia had earlier in the year changed their method of choosing electors to safeguard Jefferson's unanimous vote. Robert Goodloe Harper, newly arrived in Maryland from South Carolina and one of the leading pro- moters of the secret South Carolina scheme to shift the election to Pinckney, opened the "electoral reform" campaign with his pamphlet. Bystander: or a Series of Letters on the "Legislative Choice" of Electors in Maryland (Baltimore, 1800). Harper was in constant communication with the other Hamilton Federalists, but to what extent Hamilton himself was pulling the strings behind this maneuver so reminiscent of his abortive New York efforts is unknown. Hamilton did recommend to the cooperative McHenry that "Maryland had better choose by the Legislature. If you have a ma- jority of Federal votes throughout, we can certainly exclude Jefferson & if we please, bring the question between Adams and Pinckney to the House of Representatives."29 The Federalists consequently ran legislative candidates pledged to "reform" the choice of presidential electors. Yet this device failed, for shrewd voters saw that such a change would remove from them the direct election of electors. In the face of popular opposition, even some Federalists hesitated to advocate their party's posi- tion. Hamilton's operatives had misjudged the public sentiment, for the electoral issue more than anything else produced a Republican victory in the election, giving the Republicans a majority in the new state congress, and in the following district vote for presidential electors, the ten votes were equally divided between Federalist and Republican supporters.30 Harper's plan to snatch the election from Jefferson

28 McHenry to Oliver Wolcott, Sept. 1, 1801, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams. II, p. 415. 29 Hamilton to McHenry, Aug. 27, 1800, in Steiner, Life of McHenry, p. 466. 30 This entire Maryland scheme is ably discussed in detail by Roddy, "Maryland and the Presidential Election of 1800", pp. 252-256, 259-260, and Cox, Robert Goodloe Harper, pp. 184- 188. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 79

Aaron Burr. By Gilbert Stuart. From Dictionary of American Portraits.

backfired because his attempt to change the voting procedure long after the election year was in progress was simply too transparent a partisan move. In retrospect the Hamilton Federalists appear to have lost touch with reality in the months after the New York election and the dismissal of McHenry and Pickering. They accused Adams of attempting a coalition with Jefferson,31 of demagogically "engaging the force of the passions and prejudices of the populace on his side,"32 of deserting "the system which was established by Washington & which as under- stood & practised has been conceived to be wise & just."33 The dismissal of the Washington cabinet appointees was final proof of Adams's apostasy, but his mission of 1799, seeking peace with "Jacobin" France at the risk of angering England, and simultaneously "inflaming" the rabble against the English to bolster his own popu- larity, seemed to the Hamiltonians the worst travesty against the principles of Washington. In reaction to Adams's taking to the stump to defend his administra- tion,34 the Hamiltonians became almost hysterical. Incredulous as it now appears.

"Timothy Pickering to Rufus King, May 28, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 248; Pickering lo George Cabot, June 16, 1800, in Lodge, Life of Cabot, p. 276. 32 George Cabot to Oliver Wolcott, July 20, 1800, in Lodge, Life of Cabot, p. 281. 33 George Cabot to Rufus King, July 21, 1800. in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 279. 34 For Adams's campaigning, see Kurtz, Presidency of John Adams, pp. 397-400. 80 Maryland Historical Magazine their imaginations transformed conservative John Adams into a mobocratic Jacobin, willing to risk war with Great Britain rather than lose his office.

Those who have need of the aid that popular impulse can lend to their designs probably will know that to command that impulse and to have all it's [sic] force it is necessary to agitate the popular passions. A cold multitude like a cold iron is too hard for the hammers—red hot, they are ductile to the pincers. How shall this heat, this welding heat, be imparted, and kept up? no way is so sure and obvious as re-exciting the rage against G[reat] B[ritain]. A war, or measures leading to war will heat every body red hot. Whether these steps are to be taken in all events, and of choice, or whether they are to be only the expedients of necessity and are to be adopted as occasions call for them, I will not say[.] But when a man thinks no cause good or safe without him, he may possibly act with as much blindness as extrava- gance when he resolves rather to hazard the ships than his captaincy.35

Hamilton was so opposed to Adams remaining in the presidency that he would do everything possible to defeat him, even if such desperate measures put Jefferson in the White House. "If we must have an enemy at the head of the government," he wrote to Theodore Sedgwick soon after the anti-Adams plot was hatched,

let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures. Under Adams, or under Jefferson, the government will sink. The party in the hands of whose chief it shall sink will sink with it, and the advantage will all be on the side of his adversaries.36

Throughout the year the Hamilton Federalists continued their letter writing cam- paign, excoriating Adams and commiserating with one another over the declining political fortunes of the nation. Hamilton was almost alone in being able to see some possible good for their party if Jefferson won. Most, like Fisher Ames, saw only dis- aster: "Jefferson's election will greatly endanger our peace abroad, and order at home."37 Nevertheless, "however dangerous the election of Mr. Jefferson may prove to the community," wrote Oliver Wolcott, "I do not perceive that any portion of the mischief would be avoided by the election of Mr. Adams. We know the temper of his mind to be revolutionary, violent, and vindictive. . . ."38 With such intensity of feel- ing it is apparent why they were willing to risk everything in order to swing the elec- tion to Pinckney. More was involved than mere partisan politics—as pronounced as that was. The Hamiltonians were absolutely convinced that the continued safety and prosperity of their region, indeed, the survival of the nation itself, depended

35 Fisher Ames to Rufus King, July 15, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 277. 36 Hamilton to Sedgwick, May 10, 1800, in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, p. 375. 37 Fisher Ames to Rufus King, Sept. 24, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, III, p. 306. 38 Wolcott to Fisher Ames, Aug. 10, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, 11, p. 401. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 81

Robert Goodloe Harper. By St. Memin. Maryland Historical Society. upon their kind of leadership and their policies.39 Even though there were motives of status and economic interest, they were paranoid enough to believe that the al- ternatives to Pinckney were genuinely catastrophic. Only they—not the people— knew what was best; political intrigue, misinformation, slander, and deception were justified. This elitest concern was most clearly expressed by George Cabot, who wrote Alexander Hamilton that there was "one unanswerable reason for wishing Mr. Pinckney to succeed, and that is that the best, and indeed, all the truly good men would find themselves in their proper places, arranged under the banners of the Con-

39 John R. Howe, Jr., "Republican Thought and the Political Violence of the 1790s," American Quar- terly, 19 (Summer 1967), pp. 147-165. 82 Maryland Historical Magazine stitution and laws, on the side of the national chief."40 In other words, "they will be in the places where the wise & good ought always to be found."41 Such a narrow conception of politics, such an elitest and self serving definition of "the wise & good," such an intemperate resort to manipulation of the electorate, was ultimately doomed to failure. The Hamiltonians were a minority faction of the minority party, and the shrill warnings of imminent disaster and Jacobin revolution revealed them for what they were. In the early fall Hamilton wrote a devastating critique of Adams, but his acerbic pamphlet attack backfired after it was pirated in (or leaked to) the press in late October. Hamilton had intended it only for certain Federalists, but now it was public. No Jeffersonian could have attacked his opponent more savagely. That Hamilton so praised McHenry for his "exposure" of Adams's supposedly unjustified and intemperate dismissal of the Secretary of War indicates the extremes to which he thought he was justified:

III treatment of Mr. M'Henry cannot fail to awaken the sympathy of every person well ac- quainted with him. Sensible, judicious, well-informed, of an integrity never questioned, of a temper, which, though firm in the support of principles, has too much moderation and amenity to offend by the manner of doing it—1 dare pronounce that he never gave Mr. Adams cause to treat him, as he did, with unkindness. If Mr. Adams thought that his exe- cution of his office indicated a want of the particular qualifications required for it, he might have said so with gentleness, and he would have only exercised a prerogative entrusted to him by the Constitution, to which no blame could have been attempted; but it was unjusti- fiable to aggravate the deprivation of office by humiliating censures and bitter reproaches.42

In contrast the Jeffersonians ran a smooth, well organized campaign, and although Jefferson was buffeted by charges that he was an atheist and radical,43 these seemed to have little effect except in those regions where he had no strong appeal anyway. The internecine struggle in the Federalist party necessarily interfered with the party's success. Even in South Carolina the Federalist party was demoralized, while the Republicans had all the advantages. As a result, Jefferson and Burr, not Adams and Pinckney, received the Palmetto State's total electoral vote. The resulting tie in the national electoral vote is well known. A group of die-hard Federalists then con- nived, since they still controlled the House before the new legislature was seated, to break the tie in favor of Burr, whom they considered motivated purely by the desire for money and power, and hence susceptible to manipulation.44 Hamilton came to his senses—partly out of genuine concern for the future of the nation that he had

'"Cabot to Hamilton, Aug. 10, 1800, in Lodge, Cabot, p. 284. 11 Cabot to Rufus King, Aug. 9, 1800, in King, Life and Correspondence ofRufus King, III, p. 292. 42 [Alexander Hamilton], Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Char- acter of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States (2nd. ed.. New York, 1800), p. 41. 43 Charles O. Lerche, Jr., "Jefferson and the Election of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd. ser., 5 (Oct. 1948), pp. 467-491. 44 Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Dec. 16, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, p. 458. Also in Hamilton, Works of Hamilton, X, p. 392. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 83

John Jay. By Gilbert Stuart. From Dictionary of American Portraits. done so much to establish, and partly because he hated and feared Burr and felt a grudging respect for Jefferson's adherence to principles—and began a feverish cam- paign to convince the doubting Federalists that they should vote for Jefferson. He wrote James A. Bayard, Congressman from Delaware, that Burr was "as unprinci- pled and dangerous a man as any country can boast—as true a Catiline as ever met in midnight conclave."45 "Alas!" he wrote at the end of the year to a fellow High Federalist, "when will men consult their reason rather than their passions? What- ever they may imagine, the desire of mortifying the adverse party must be the chief spring of their disposition to prefer Mr. Burr. . . . Adieu to the Federal Troy, if they once introduce this Grecian Horse into their citadel. Trust me, very dear friend, you cannot render a greater service to your country than to resist this project."46 The final resolution of the tie in a series of votes in the House is still unclear.47 Bayard, who perhaps always intended to drop his vote if the continued tie threat- ened the nation with either discord or the possibility of no president, announced be- fore the thirty-sixth ballot that he was going to abstain. This would result in Jeffer- son's victory; once the outcome was certain, the Federalists from the states of Ver- mont and Maryland abstained, giving those two states to Jefferson. Delaware and South Carolina abstained, recording no vote, and the four other New England states stuck with Burr to the end. No Federalist state cast a single vote for Jefferson. Bay- ard's break, whether influenced by his correspondence with Hamilton or not, was crucial. Perhaps he had received some subtle assurances on certain points of policy

45 Hamilton to Bayard, Aug. 6, 1800, in Hamilton. Works of Hamilton. X, p. 387. 46 Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Dec. 17, 1800, in Gibhs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, p. 460. 47 There is a great body of scholarship on this final resolution of the election. See the appropriate pages in the books cited in footnote 2, above; Morten Borden, The Federalism of James A. Bayard (New York, 1955), chap. 7; and John S. Pancake, "Aaron Burr: Would-Be Usurper," William and Marv Quarterly, 3rd. ser., 8 (April 1951), pp. 204-213. 84 Maryland Historical Magazine from Samuel Smith, whom Bayard believed to be speaking for Jefferson. There is no evidence at all that Jefferson knowingly participated in any kind of bargain. But the crisis was over; the nation had changed political control without bloodshed. Jefferson's victory really marked the end of the Federalist Party. Younger, more moderate Federalists adopted the ways of their rivals,48 and found momentary suc- cess in portions of New England, but the twilight of Federalism soon faded. Distrust of the people, the willingness to subvert the election process by blatant deception if that seemed to be the only way to keep one's position, an exclusive identification of oneself with the good of the nation, all these doomed the Federalist party. James McHenry, for all his incompetence and abject loyalty to the Hamilton forces, came to realize this basic failure in his party. He seems to have recognized the seaminess of their actions, and although he cooperated throughout the election year in the campaign conspiracy, one feels that he knew it was unethical, disgusting, and ultimately self defeating. He condemned himself along with his party in a heart- felt letter to Oliver Wolcott in the midst of the presidential canvass:

Have our party shown that they possess the necessary skill and courage to deserve to be continued to govern? What have they done? They did not, (with a few exceptions) knowing the disease, the man and his nature, meet it when it first appeared, like wise and resolute patriots; they tampered with it, and thought of palliations down to the last day of the late session of Congress. Nay, their conduct, even now, notwithstanding the consequences full in their view, (should the present chief be elected) in most, if not all of the states, is tremulous, timid, feeble, deceptive, and cowardly. They write private letters. To whom? To each other, but they do nothing to give a proper direction to the public mind. They observe, even in their conversation, a discrete circumspection generally, ill calculated to diffuse information, or prepare the mass of the people for the result. They mediate in private. Can good come out of such a system? If the party recovers its pristine energy and splendour, shall 1 ascribe it to such cunning, paltry, indecisive, back-door conduct? Certainly I shall not, but to a kind and watchful Providence alone, who will not punish the many for the faults of the few, who overlooks our feebleness and follies, and who guides unerringly and according to the end he has ordained, all the governments of the world. I carry, you see, my religious principles into my politics.49

McHenry was contrite, but the damage had already been, and was continuing to

48 David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, 1965). •'9 McHenry to Wolcott, July 22, 1800, in Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, II, pp. 384385. Evidently Charles Carroll of CarroUton and others were similarly disenchanted with the whole election process, for McHenry noted in a later letter: "What appears to be the present state of the public mind in Maryland . . . ? As far as my observation extends, there is every symptom of lan- guor, and inactivity, with some exceptions, among (he well informed federalists, which every new recur- rence to the conduct and character of the chief, seems rather to increase, than diminish. Mr. Charles Carroll, of CarroUton, did not go down to Annapolis, from his country residence, to aid in the election of members for our legislature. 1 also know many others who did not vote on the occasion." McHenry to Wolcott, Oct. 12, 1800, in ibid., p. 433. Politics, Intrigue, and the Presidency 85 be done. Any attempt to dictate the outcome of a presidential election by clandestine methods, then to prevent the voters from discovering those tactics in the belief that the people do not understand sufficiently to make the proper electoral choice, was destined to fail eventually. This is the real moral of the election of 1800, and it should not be forgotten. Jefferson's essential respect for the populace carried his party to political ascendancy. McHenry and the Hamiltonians lacked that trust, and their viability as a political party evaporated. Notes on Maryland Historical Society Manuscript Collections

RICHARD J. COX, Curator of Manuscripts

A Description of the Vertical File

X HE VERTICAL FILE is infrequently used even though many of the most im- portant manuscripts of the Society are in it. The reason for this incongruity is that the vertical file is not understood. To rectify this, the following essay defines and describes the file. Technically, the vertical file is not a manuscript "collection." The Society's manu- script division has somewhat arbitrarily labeled a collection as a group of documents (purchased or donated in a group) numbering five items or more. Manuscripts ob- tained by the Society singly or as a group of less than five are placed within the ver- tical file. The catalogue to the vertical file in the manuscript reading room is handled in the same manner as the main catalogue except that instead of a collection an in- dividual document is indexed; this, of course, makes its information more detailed. For each manuscript there is a main descriptive card which is completely cross- referenced; the main cards signify the location of the manuscripts which are arranged in alphabetical order usually under the primary person's name but also, occassion- ally, under the document-type (such as "account book" or "inventory"). Though the vertical file is actually a collection of individual manuscripts, there is no limit of material on any one subject. Since the file is open-ended, i.e. always sub- ject to new additions, and presently consisting of well over 3000 pieces, it is possible that the amount of information on a topic will be quite great. Already a large Rev- olutionary War (MS. 1814), War of 1812 (MS 1846), and Civil War Collection (MS. I860) have been formed out of the vertical file (these collections are also open-ended). Also, recently, a Colonial Collection (MS. 2018) has been begun, and eventually the present vertical file will be partially disassembled into a number of other smaller col- lections. This latter project is to facilitate the completeness of the publication of the second volume to The Manuscript Collections of the Maryland Historical Society, now five years and 300 collections out of date. Of all the groupings of manuscripts at the Society, the vertical file is naturally the most diverse. Many manuscripts relate to politics, religion, the military, and eco- nomics and are not only confined to Maryland but also extend into the national and international scenes. Contrasted to this are the many family papers of the vertical file which give less of a view of the common life than family gossip; at times, however,

86 Manuscript Notes 87 they succeed at both. In 1850, for example, in writing to his nephew one man ex- pressed the importance of corresponding frequently; "it has been a long time . . . since you gave me your last epistle Presidents have been made and died Nations have been lost and won new stars added to the banner. . . and Jenny Lind has sung. . . ." His point had been effectively made. Many of the most interesting manuscripts in the vertical file concern politics. In early 1743 the fifth Lord Baltimore complained, as his predecessors had done, about the Assembly: "I find Great complyance in the Upper & none in the Lower House." There are letters describing the 1832 Presidential election in Maryland, an account of the influence of the "Know Nothing" Party in the state in the mid-1850s, and many letters from Marylanders seeking political appointments through new Presidential administrations. In 1898 Charles J. Bonaparte, who later served as Theodore Roose- velt's Secretary of the Navy and Attorney General, explained to a friend his plan for cleaning up Baltimore City politics by organizing a committee of between twenty and thirty men "to get into shape an Independent movement sufficiently formidable to frighten, if possible, both the parties [Democrat and Republican] into making good nominations (in which case there will be nothing more for us to do), but, if one only will give us decent candidates, to secure the success of this one; with the alter- natives of a wholly independent nomination in every case where neither party offers us a fit man to vote for." The frustrations of a political reformer working against the traditional two-party system can be sensed. A smaller number of the manuscripts concern national politics. There are, for instance, two David Crockett letters of 1835 in which he attacks Andrew Jackson for interfering in his bid for re-election to Con- gress; according to Crockett, it was below the dignity of the President to be involved in "open Electionaring [sic]." Some of these letters to past generations seem very contemporary in tone and circumstance. Samuel Chase in 1790 wrote of the con- nection of the liberty of the press and government; Chase thought the press could question the government but must not publish and expose "the follies (or even Vices) of private Citizens.. . ." The difficulty, which has not been resolved, was in

Archbishop Samuel Eccleston. Maryland Historical Society. 88 Maryland Historical Magazine ascertaining how private a public official's life could be. For researchers interested in economic history, a look at the vertical file will not be disappointing. Several documents illustrate the early growth of Baltimore Town, later Baltimore City; in 1748 subscriptions were raised to build a fence to keep the domestic animals, and three years later the first Market House and Town Hall were planned. There are many day books, such as one of an Annapolis merchant for 1772- 1773, account books, and miscellaneous receipts and accounts. There is the stock re- port of the Baltimore, Annapolis and Drum Point Telephone Company of Baltimore City for 1907, showing that even after ten years of existence the company was neither the size nor as profitable as today's giants. One of the most fascinating letters is from Amos Kendall in 1834 describing a recent run on banks. Kendall, an avid supporter of the Jackson administration and serving as the fourth auditor of the Treasury, ad- vised Thomas Ellicott, a Baltimore banker, "to keep clear of entangling alliances and so strengthen yourself as to stand if every other Bank in Baltimore fails." There are numerous documents conerned with literature, the fine arts, science, and education within the vertical file. There is a letter from Junius Booth to the Editor of the American and Commercial Advertiser describing his first perform- ance of Hamlet; Junius Booth was the father of the famous Shakespearean actor Edwin Booth and the equally infamous John Wilkes Booth. Ross Jungnickel wrote to Robert Garrett in 1890 concerning the prospects of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra's second season, with a goal to "maintain a fine permanent Orchestra in Baltimore, consisting of fifty of the very best professional musicians, in order to foster and elevate the standard of musical culture." There are the minutes of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's meeting in Baltimore in 1858, the forming of the Baldwin Literary and Debating Society of Savage, Mary- land, and the roll book and account book of the Andrew Small Academy in Darnes- town, Maryland for 1892-1906. In the vertical file there is also a letter from John J. Audubon in 1833 just after the publication of the first volume of his famous The Birds of America predicting that "it will take in all probability Eight Years more to finish the Work from this date." Religion is well represented in the vertical file with some of the file's finest letters on this subject. In one of 1893, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous American author, writes freely of his conception of the American Catholic Church: "You must have misunderstood me in thinking I spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as the future church of America. 1 think its organization a wonderful piece of machinery but I never thought it could have more than a fractional hold of our people." In 1839, Samuel Ecclestion, the Archbishop of Baltimore, wrote of the city's harsh reaction to the establishment of the first convent: "In Baltimore, especially, I was not pre- pared to expect them [riots], where the very name of our city reminds me of the Catholic founder of Maryland, one of the earliest & truest friends of Civil and re- ligious liberty. Yet, it is in this city, that we have witnessed a cruel and unmanly attack upon the reputations & peaceful abode of inoffensive women, many of whom are descended from the first colonists of Maryland, and who, holding still the faith Manuscript Notes 89 of their fathers, have chosen to enter a religious community and divide their time between the practices of prayer, self-denial, and the instruction of youth." There is also, surprisingly, a "Father Divine" letter of 1938 explaining his religious convic-

Charles Joseph Bonaparte, Maryland Historical Society. 90 Maryland Historical Magazine tions. The recent upsurges of interest in Black History and Women's Studies have in- creased the usage of manuscripts at the Society. The vertical file contains some im- portant sources. There is the 1825 Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society of Mary- land and the minutes of its earliest meetings, an 1828 notice for a runaway slave, a 1789 Benjamin Banneker letter on the eclipses of the sun, and a 1790 letter of a Maryland slave owner questioning how to hire out his slave. Also in the vertical file is an 1891 Susan B. Anthony letter in which she suggests how to obtain a speaker for the National American Woman Suffrage Association meeting to be held in Balti- more, the records of the Female Bible Society of Annapolis for 1829-1847, and a 1876 report from the Home of Fallen Women in Baltimore. Of course, most of the manuscripts in the vertical file are about Maryland. One of the earliest manuscripts in the vertical file is a 1632 letter from George Calvert, written just eighteen days before his death, about threats of the Virginia Company to thwart his plans for founding the Maryland colony. A 1780 receipt for Henry Harford's payment of two arrow heads for Maryland shows his wistful thinking that Maryland might somehow •main a colony. Other intriguing manuscripts are a letter picturing the 1817 Jones r ills flood and a 1844 letter containing the reminis- cences of Robert Gilmor of Baltimore ("as there are few now living who recollect the phases of our once small town but now our large & wealthy City...."). There are even materials on the history of th. Society, such as a 1890 John H. B. Latrobe letter reflecting on the origins of the So^'ety half-a-century earlier. This description has not been meant to be comprehensive but only to point out the highlights of the richness of the vertical file. Many other topics than those men- tioned are represented. The ver' "al file is not simply a "catch-all" for the sorting of individual manuscripts, it is itally important component of the Society's manu- scripts collections. Accessions of the Manuscript Division Since the Publication of Manuscript Collections of the Maryland Historical Society in August, 19681

Elk Ridge Landing Papers (MS. 1894). Ledger sheets of a storekeeper at Elk Ridge Landing; 1 box, 1786-7. Donor: Dennis Claude.

1 Indexed listing and description of 1,724 of the Society's collections. Available from the Society for $15.00. Manuscript Notes 91

Ellicott Land Papers (MS. 1960). Deeds for land in Baltimore City. Also a receipt for purchase of clothing; 7 items, 1795 1818. Donor: C. Ellis Ellicott. Ellicott Letters (MS. 1952). Mostly concerning an iron ore lease in Leesburg, Vir- ginia; 11 items, 1848 94. Donor: Unknown. Finney, Ebenezer D., Papers (MS. 1978). Miscellaneous collection including some letters about occurrences during the Civil War in Mississippi, family news, and stu- dent life at Princeton; 13 items, 1783, 1864 1900. Donor: Mrs. William Parker Finney. First Unitarian Church of Baltimore Records (MS. 1895). Includes correspond- ence of Williams and Burnap families and Enoch Pratt concerning this church. Also records of baptism, funerals, and marriages; 3 boxes, 1784-1928. Donor: Unitarian- Universalist Church. Fitzhugh Account Books (MS. 1831). Account books of Colonel William Fitzhugh of Calvert County, Maryland; 2 vols., 1761 74. Donor: R. G. Williams. Foard, F. Millard, Papers (MS. 1984). Letters from Baltimore City College alumni to Foard, Alumni Relations Correspondent. Several letters concern his oriental art collection; 296 items, 1923, 1949 73. Donor: F. Millard Foard. Forman, Mrs. M. B., Diary of (MS. 1779). Depiction of plantation life at For- man's estate, "Rose Hill," Cecil County, Maryland; 6 boxes, 1814 54. Donor: Mrs. Harry Boden. Fort Warren Prisoners' Records (MS. 1957). Contains many entries by such politi- cal prisoners as George William Brown, Mayor of Baltimore City, and Frank Key Howard, Editor of the Daily Exchange. Fort Warren was located in Massachusetts; I vol., 1861 2. Purchase: From the estate of Rochesse Buelle with the aid of Thomas Vance Little. Fowler, David, Collection (MS. 1876.1). Personal, business, and legal papers of David Fowler, Maryland lawyer and longtime Chief Judge of the Maryland Circuit Court; 6 boxes, 1853 1909. Donor: Mrs. Laurence H. Fowler. Fowler, John H., Collection (MS. 1876.2). Small collection of various business letters, leases, stock transfers, and contracts of Fowler, a partner in Fowler & Ziegler, flour and commission merchants in Baltimore; 25 items, 1873 98. Donor: Mrs. Lau- rence H. Fowler. Fowler, Laurence Hall, Collection (MS. 1876.3). A few early personal papers, notebooks, text books, etc. of this distinguished Baltimore architect; Fowler was the architect of the War Memorial, Hall of Records in Annapolis, Evergreen House Library, etc.; 15 items, 16 notebooks, 1 scrapbook, 1879 1951. Donor: Mrs. Lau- rence H. Fowler. Fowler, Robert, Collection (MS. 1876). Business papers and correspondence of Robert Fowler, state treasurer, legislator, owner of flour mill and distillery, and a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; 175 items, 1844 91. Donor: Mrs. Lau- rence H. Fowler. Frisbee Letters (MS. 1942). Love letters of Lt. Rob R. Frisbee to Hattie Bonbright and a newspaper clipping concerning the Lincoln abduction conspiracy; 18 letters, I 92 Maryland Historical Magazine newspaper clipping, 1862-65. Donor: Mrs. R. B. Randel. Gaddess Papers (MS. 1946). Documents related to Gaddess Bros., marble dealers, newspaper clippings, and genealogies of the Gaddess, Ensor, Gorsuch, and Carter families; 21 items, 1737-1896. Donor: G. Harvey Davis. Gary, James A., Papers (MS. 1980). Letters from John Sherman and James A. Garfield to Gary about Baltimore Republicans. Also some newspaper clippings; 8 items, 1879-80. Donor: Miss Louisa M. Gray. Gatchell, Samuel H., Collection (MS. 1988). Letters from Gatchell, at sea, to his wife in Maryland; 7 items, 1844-46. Donor: Howell L. Gatchell. Gorman Testimonial Book (MS. 706.1). Compiled by Douglas H. Thomas, Pres- ident, Merchants National Bank, Baltimore. The Testimonial was given because of Senator Arthur P. Gorman's action in defeating the Cloture Rule and the Force Bill; 1 vol., 1891. Donor: Arthur Gorman Lambert. Gorsuch Receipts (MS. 1909.2). Receipts of Joshua Gorsuch, a sea captain who owned a home near North Point; 100 items, 1808-19. Donor: Enoch Pratt Free Library. Greene Papers (MS. 1962). Papers concerned with the Baltimore coffee fleet. Many center about Captain Edwin F. Greene, a master in the fleet in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries; 2 boxes, 1842-1955. Donor: Mrs. F. A. Greene. Green Spring and Worthington Valley Planning Council, Inc. Papers (MS. 1889). Minutes, original reports, plans, brochures, etc. of this planning council, formed in 1964 to preserve the Valley area; 2 boxes, 1964-71 (open-ended collection). Donor: Dr. Douglas G. Carroll, Jr. Graves/Stewart Collection (MS. 1991). Letters, manuscripts, and assorted papers of these two families; 17 items, 1865 1963. Donor: Mrs. Arthur Richard Wyatt. Griffith-Staats Cookbooks (MS. 1765). Cookbooks of Mary Black Griffith and Elizabeth Griffith Staats; 2 vols. Donor: Unknown. Gunpowder District Grange (MS. 1863.1).Minutes of the proceedings of the Gun- powder Grange #127 in Baltimore County, Maryland; 2 vols., 1875-81. Donor: Mrs. R. M. Schauffler and William T. Brown in memory of Mrs. Caroline Cator Taylor Brown, daughter of Col. Benjamin Franklin Taylor. GENEALOGICA MARYLANDIA Captain John Fulford's Company February 13, 1776, to May 21,1777

Edited by MARY K. MEYER

As our nation's bicentennial approaches, historians and genealogists are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of records relating to our long period of gestation and the travail of our birth as a republic. These records are now sought after diligently and made available to the public when found. There are many such records. They have not been "lost" or newly discovered; instead they have lain quietly through the years awaiting the attention they deserve. Such is the manuscript presented here. In anticipation of a demand for Revolutionary items created by the approaching bicenten- nial, the entire holdings of the Manuscripts Division of the Maryland Historical Society were examined during the past two years for such material. In the process, the original of this record was found in the vertical file but has since been transferred to the Revolutionary War Collection (MS. 1814).

Instructions for inlisting Men in the Service of Maryland You are to inlist no Man who is not able bodied, healthy and a good marcher, nor such whose attachment to the liberties of America you have cause to suspect. Young hearty robust men who are tied by Birth Family Connections or property to this Country; and are well practised in the use of firearms are by much to be preferred. 2. You'll have great Regard to moral Character; Sobriety in particular. 3. You are not to inlist any servant imported, nor with out the leave of the Master any Apprentice. 4. Those who engage in the Service are to be inlisted according to the Form prescribed by this Convention. 5. You shall appoint such men Serjeants and Corporals as recommend themselves by their ability. Activity and Diligence, and you are also to appoint the Drummer and Fifer to your Company. 6. You will use all Diligence in compleating your Company and report to the Council of Safety. 7. You are to be allowed 7/6 per week for the Subsist of Recruits till they arrive at their Station.

93 94 Maryland Historical Magazine

TO ALL BRAVE, HEALTHY, ABLE BODIED, AND WELL DISPOSED YOUNG MEN. IN THIS NKIGUBOUBHOOD, WHO HAVE ANY INCLINATION TO JOIN THE TROOPS, NOW RAISING UNDER GENERAL WASHINGTON, LIBERTIK AND WDEPOmNCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Agaioft the holUU Jofigm bf fortigo enemks, TAKE~NOTICE,

dty.ati'-iirfiiiice nil! h? yucFi \<\ • cmnptin^ i" . /-••=, •<- ^f ,..&.„ HI it|| Lii, t .. Itify .1!' I'WRLVK (iollan*. :iiJ ;• . • .. i! .'(.).ll(MtJ:i, H.l'.UliKT -VMh M\ I : .; I. • himfelf and tni-mk. itsal! afii>l''SM->j- .wwrttmitv flf heal B • •' uirn «ill liar. . • :,..mn ..f u^-M.hn.. • .i.lKrrni pai 1. m .lit i,o„, .^ . . , ..f a fo(i1a-r, art.T » in.h . h.- ^..^ , if ht pl^fii r^inr..

Enlistment Notice. Library of Congress.

8. You will take notice that the Colonel of the Battalion or a Field Officer to be appointed by him is to inspect your.. . [an]d reject such as. .. your instructions. We whose Names are hereto subscribed do voluntarily[in]Iist ourselves Soldiers or Malrosses to serve as such[in] the present Dispute between Great Britain and Am[erica] unless sooner discharged by order of the Convention] Council of Safely of Maryland for the time being ... by Subjecting ourselves to the Rules [and] Regulations as are or shall be made by the Convention] of Maryland for regulating and governing the Forces in the Pay of the Province. Witness our Hands.

Where Mens Names Born Age Advance Occupation

1776 James X* Corwin Dublin 20 1 "15-0 Labourer Feby 13 Joshua X* Miles Maryland 22 1 "15-0 Ditto Jacob X* Clark Ditto 18 1 "15 0 Ditto Henry Black Dublin 38 1 "15-0 Shoemaker Charles Lowe Ditto 25 1 "15-0 Linen Weaver Michael m* Young Redding town 22 1 "15-0 Labourer Captain John Fulford's Company 95

Nicholas X* Johnson Belfast 21 2" 1-0 Ditto Rawleigh Spinks Virginia 28 ri5-0 Carpenter 14 Elick Burke Ireland 25 2"0-0 Labourer 15 James McC .. . ornt New York 32 l"15- Joshua X* Lovely Hull in 31 l"15-0 Shoemaker England John V* Conner Ireland 20 r'is-o Ditto John South[?] Maryland 22 l"15-0 Brick Maker Daniel X* Hovey Dublin 26 3"4-3 Gunsmith 16 Charles Groome England 34 I"15- Barber John Hide Dublin 18 I'TS-O Sail maker Richd. X* Smith Maryland 18 ri5-o Ship Carpenter Isaac Rawluy[?] Ditto 27 Farmer William Bright Ditto 22 Ditto Will"1 X* Davis England 18 ns-o Labourer 17 William X* Brown Dublin 18 Ditto Patrick Nugent Dublin 22 [entry interlined] by 17 James X* Brooks England 23 Weaver 19 Mich1 X* Obrien Ireland 23 Labourer John Kennedy Ditto 26 Ditto Thomas Tranter Pensylv". 21 Miller John Dick England 30 Taylor Mashack Samuel Pennylv". 29 Chairmaker Joel Higginbottom Maryland 19 Joiner Jn0. Radcliffe England 47 Barber 20 Jn0. X* Martin Ditto 28 Labourer John Z* Zink Ditto 25 Thomas X* Wood Ditto 35 Ditto 21 Darby Spellecy Ireland 21 Ropemaker James O* Wellst Ditto 18 Weaver Cornelius X* Donald 34 Labourer 22 George Steward London 26 Labourer Charles Muret Ditto 26 Ditto 23 Nicholas Prickettt Maryland 26 Do Catt Connor Ireland 23 l"15-0 Carpenter Hans Adams Philad". 29 r'15-0 Printer John Malts Bristol 22 Labourer 24 Henry X* Magen Ireland 26 Ditto Andrew Boyert Bucks Cty. 41 Carpenter John X* St, Fallt Ireland 25 Labourer 26 Georget* Givenst Ditto 20 Ditto Ben W. Sheridan Ditto 25 Barber Lawrence Kenney Ditto 24 Taylor 28 Daniel Cuckley Ditto 24 Shoemaker Ashael Heulingst Philad" 25 Taylor William X* Jemmison Pensylv" 18 Labourer Robert C* Hill England 19 Ditto 96 Maryland Historical Magazine

29 Thomas X* Carter Ditto 35 Ditto Mar. 1 John X* Gorman Ireland 27 Ditto 2 John Walker England 28 Ditto Jas. Magrah Ireland 22 Ditto Henry X* Lidsinger Germany 30 Mason David X* Kinsey Maryland 33 Weaver Michel X* Hart Ireland 25 l"15-0 Butcher Darby Kelly Ditto 26 l"15-0 Labourer Sommers Pilladelp" 22 Backer ck X* Nortont Ireland 24 r'15-0 Labourer John X* Evanie[?] Wales 36 Sawyer Francis X* Stanley England 28 Labourer Will1" X* Carpentert Ditto 40 Ditto Henry Ashfield England 22 Labourer Mark Linzly Worrallt Do. 25 Paper[?] Maker 11 Leaven Deysey[?]t Maryland 21 Carpenter Jacob X* Bromwell Virginia 23 Ship Carpenter Will1" X* Connelly Ireland 22 Labourer James X* Whaling Maryland Farmer John X* Connelly Maryland 21 Ship Carpenter 12 Andrew X* William Amsterdam 27 Labourer John Robinson Engd. 40 Ditto Tamerlane Spencer Talbot Cty. 26 Ship Carpenter Maryland John Bantzt Ditto 18 Farmer Willm. X* Hockt Ditto 20 Ditto Thos. Haleyt Maryland 20 Farmer 14 Thomas Colin London 33 Founder John X* Bootman Maryland 22 Farmer James Adams Ireland 29 Farmer James X* Crosby Do 36 Labourer April 6th Samuel Carter England 42 I"I5- Carpenter 19 Thos X* Newton Maryland 24 Labourer 27 James X* Munsel Ireland 26 Weaver June 6 George X* Hall England 25 Ditto 20 Joseph X* Ward ditto 23 Bricklayer 24 Mich1 W* Landragan Virginia 21 ditto July 3 James X* Hardesty Maryland 23 Labourer 16 Tho", Carpenter England 29 £rT0- Weaver Aug. 10 John X* Lynch Ireland 27 Labourer 25 Spencer* Sebree Virginia 26 Taylor 31 James X* Taylor London 23 Plaisterer Sep1 10 Solomon X* Jones Maryland 17 Farmer 16 Willm X* Morvall Flanders 28 Labourer John Lynch Ireland 23 Carpenter 18 Cornelius Bronlor[?] Maryland 24 Farmer Wm. Walker England 24 Weaver Captain John Fulford's Company 97

Octr 22 John Mellen Quebec 16 ditto 31 John X* Prout Maryland 30 Farmer Novr 3 Robert§ Shipley do 18 Maryland Decr 29 Tho8 X* Dixon England 30 Ditto Ocf 29 Dennis X* Myhan Ireland 22 Taylor Feby 3 Dan1 Frazier Maryland 25 Farmer May 21 Rich" Bolton England 43 5 feet Shoemaker 5 inches * his mark t entry is interlined but decipherable

A List of Deserters from Capt. John Fulford's Company When deserted** Men's names Clothes etc. carried with them Feby. 28 Thomas. Trantor April 6 Wm. Jemmison Breeches May 30 Francis Stanley Coat Jacket & Breeches & Blanket! do Thos. Roberts Jacket Breeches & Blankett June 24 John Hide Hunting Shirt Trousers & Breeches do Robt. Hill Hunting Shirt & Trousers Sepr. 3 James Hardesty Regimentals all & Hunting Shirt & Trousers Octr. 25 Wm. Morwall Hunting Shirt & Trowsers Decr 11 Mich'. Landragan Jacket Breeches & Blankett ** The year in which these desertions took place is not stated

Elick Burk of the Second Company of Artillery Commanded by Capt. Jno. Fulford having for times been guilty of getting Drunk and neglected Duty I do hereby Discharge the Said Burk from any further Service in this Corps. Given under my hand and Seal at Head Quarters in Annapolis this 10 Day May Anno Domino 1776 Copy Thos. Price Major (Seal) REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS

The Glorious Revolution in America. By David S. Lovejoy. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. Pp. 396. $15.00.)

Say of David Lovejoy's work what Gibbon said of Belisarius: "his imperfections flowed from the contagation of the times; his virtues were his own." The first half of the work analyses the theory of a mercantile empire (a la Charles M. Andrews), describes its practical effect on the commerce of the pre-revolutionary societies, and sketches their social and economic structures in that decisive decade of imperial growing pains (W. F. Craven's "time of trouble"), 1675- 1685. The search of Virginians, Marylanders, and New Yorkers for constitutional stability as a remedy for social uncertainty and economic exploitation is then narrated, as is the Stuart reply, the Dominion of New England (in terms reminiscent of V. F. Barnes). The colonial rebuttal was revolution, first that of Massachusetts and subsequently of other mainland colonies, all here reported. A two-part epilogue deals with the hitherto neglected topic of colonial resistance to the Glorious Revolution, and with the reimposition of the imperial relationship and of the colonial ruling class during 1690. The virtues of this treatment are manifold. Its author insists on the complexity, the contradictions, of human motives. For example, Mr. Lovejoy recognizes that when John Coode jailed opponents of the revolution in Maryland without legal process he did so in an effort to establish a government limited by law. Besides being more complex in character, Mr. Lovejoy's heroes are more modest in objective than other authors have described them. He observes that "the Glorious Revolution in the colonies was less an attempt to kick over the traces and strive for a brave new world in America than it was a return to acceptable conditions of empire which colonists either had lived with or had lived for in the past." Coode's Marylanders thus set out to "repudiate the proprietor and fly to the Crown" thereby securing royal government and "the rights of Englishmen" for themselves. Not only lawful English government but also "a degree of self determination . . . agreeable to settlers too long denied a role in colony affairs, a role including patronage and profits" was the goal of Maryland's revolutionaries. Here, as elsewhere, Mr. Lovejoy argues that the incentive for the colonial rebellions was the stiffling of personal ambitions by the strictures of Stuart policy. Thus the dissidents demanded "an equitable imperial constitution, based on the 'rights of Englishmen'" which would give them both status and security in the empire and "a substantial degree of self-determination which they could put to their own good use." Insofar as the wealthy and ambitious colonists who led the revolts won protection for their property and a place for themselves in provincial politics, their "revolution" was not revolutionary at all. Instead it strengthened the oligarchical character of colonial society and government. Once again the turbulent colonial populace —"moody beggars, starving for a time/of pell-mell havoc and confusion"—had changed their rulers but not their condition. The refreshing common sense of Mr. Lovejoy's conclusions is backed by his keen, if sporadic, research. The Blathwayt Papers of Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for example, are used with unprecedented thoroughness. They provide an abundance of annecdote and analysis by the best-informed colonists. These were provincial officials, writing to England's colonial secretary. Naturally they were anglophile and courtier in attitude. Their testimony, constantly contrasted with that of the revolutionaries, lends Mr. Lovejoy's narrative a stimulating tension. 98 Reviews of Recent Books 99

Unfortunately, however, only the colonial factors in the imperial equation appear, for Mr. Lovejoy ignores both Blathwayt's offical papers in English repositories and the excellent biography by G. A. Jacobsen which summarizes them. The research assistance and conclusions of his graduate students is repeatedly acknowledged by Mr. Lovejoy. Theodore B. Lewis's work on Massachusetts and the Dominion of New England, and that of John Rainbolt on Virginia, are extensively used by their mentor. Even if their insights are not always so identified, (Rainbolt's assessment of Lord Howard of Effingham's absence from his government of Virginia is a case in point), for the most part the use and citation of this talented and well directed work reflect credit on all concerned. The untimely death of John Rainbolt makes us all the more grateful for the reflection here of his wide-ranging, scholarly, and insightful studies of the Old Dominion. In pragmatic intelligence, in the clear exposition of balanced conclusion, in its research contribution, and in its use of the graduate seminar as a workshop of co-operative scholarship. The Glorious Revolution in America is Mr. Lovejoy's distinctly personal contribution to the literature of early American history, but his work shares "the contagation of the times." Like so many of his peers, Mr. Lovejoy focuses on what distinguished "colonists" or "Americans" from Englishmen. He is preoccupied with what "colonists thought about themselves and their relationship to England." Most colonists thought that they were English. Obsession with exceptional, "American," characteristics precludes consideration of prevalent realities. Thus, although Mr. Lovejoy admits that the Glorious Revolution in America succeeded only insofar as it copied the means and accepted the results of its English parent—a military coup which replaced a Catholic, francophile, absolutist commander in chief with a Protestant, francophobe, constitutional monarch—he devotes his work to an assertion that "the revolutions in America were also an attempt by the colonists to realize a conception of empire based on equality between Englishmen at home and abroad." If this was their ob- jection, the revolutions failed. The "new" regime reminded all the colonies that they "were dominions of the Crown to be dealt with as the King wished, with no assurance of English- man'srights...." Equality of rights is the theme of this work. It has long been Mr. Lovejoy's concern, for he sees the colonists' frustrating search for equal treatment in the empire as the root of American self-consciousness and, ultimately, of the American Revolution. But equality is a comparative concept. Without a thorough exposition of what it was that the colonists sought to equal, the force of Mr. Lovejoy's theme is diminished. Yet this work, like so much of our colonial scholarship, offers sophisticated analysis, supported by manuscript research, of colonial society but only bald descriptions, dependent upon sparce references to a few standard accounts, of English developments. This imbalance in attention suggests that the author, like most "colonialists," still resembles his forbearers of 1690, "exceedingly wedded to their own ways, a very home-bred people...." One last symptom of current academic infections appears in this work: the ascription of scholarly virtue to manuscript citation, even where the cited accounts have already been analyzed by other scholars and where conclusions identical to theirs are presented in the text. Mr. Lovejoy's reliance on manuscript citation to support his repetition of arguments previously put forward, and more broadly evidenced, by other modern scholars, leaves the reader with a choice of unfortunate impressions: either Mr. Lovejoy has not read most of the work of his colleagues in the field of early American politics and society, or he is unwilling to acknowledge what he owes them. Specialists will not fail to note, for example, that Mr. Lovejoy's analysis of the importance of the 1696 Act of Trade echoes but does not credit Charles M. Andrews's 100 Maryland Historical Magazine magisterial discussion (compare Lovejoy, p. 378, with Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History. IV, 258). Other readers, however, should not be left without reference to the literature which, the pretensions of this work notwithstanding, is still indispensible to an understanding of the Glorious Revolution in America. Despite its share of our academic ills, Mr. Lovejoy's work possesses a comprehensive and concluding merit: it is conceived on a broad enough time scale and written out in sufficient detail and length to incorporate, if not always to acknowledge, many of the findings of a whole generation of scholarship, as well as Mr. Lovejoy's own researches. The breadth of his canvas permits Mr. Lovejoy to paint the first panorama of this little known and highly debatable land. If all the elements of the composition do not relate to its theme, equality; if, therefore, the work is sometimes monographic and othertimes general, and if some of the scenes are familiar, Mr. Lovejoy's readers will enjoy nonetheless the wealth of particular detail and of general insights which he offers on the colonial crisis of the seventeenth century.

Syracuse University STEPHEN SAUNDERS WEBB

Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland. By John Reps. (Williamsburg; Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1972. Distributed by the University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Pp. xii, 345. $15.00.)

Footnotes, illustrations, and bibliography are the highlights of John Reps's Tidewater Towns, although the quality and cropping of many of the reproductions are cause for re- strained enthusiasm. The narrative is disappointing. What argument there is to the book has appeared before in Town Planning in Frontier America (Princeton, 1969), which itself was largely taken from The Making of Urban America (Princeton, 1965), and it is doubtful whether it was really necessary to say again in three hundred pages what had been well put in forty. There is no question that Reps has uncovered a large number of town plans, although there are others such as "Ogle Town" in Maryland that for one reason or another he neglected to record. The problem with his work is that with the exception of Williamsburg he knows the towns he describes only superficially and as a result misses significant developments (or the lack thereof) in town planning that were important aspects of urban growth in the Chesapeake. For example he spends one whole chapter on Annapolis yet never mentions that most of the property was developed, not in the nice neat lots that show on the Stoddert map he reproduces, but according to simple or ground rent leases that produced an entirely different pattern of land use. Nicholson's design was definitely a factor in determining the shape of some of the lots, but the timing of their development and the character of the building that took place on them was directly related to the nature of opportunity and pace of economic growth in the town. For example, contrary to Reps's assertion, Annapolis did not suddenly decline after the Revolution, (p. 138) Its merchants prospered greatly, if briefly, after the war, enabling them to place their own imprint on the town's physical development. The war ended the building of gracious townhouses, but the erection of what might today be called middle and lower income housing grew apace between 1783 and 1793 on lots leased on ground rents from a number of the more important merchants and other affluent citizens. Although in 1770 a merchant, Charles Wallace, began leasing lots from his large tract of land that ran from State Circle to the harbor. Reviews of Recent Books 101 a majority of the first houses on them were built in the ten years after 1783 by laborers and minor craftsmen. Except for the earliest of town designers such as Nicholson, Reps never mentions entrepreneurs like Wallace and ignores a whole dimension of town planning that should be an integral part of any such study of the Chesapeake. Annapolis, of course, is not the only town discussed by Reps, although about ten percent of his text is devoted to it, but the same absence of any discussion of the timing, and often the factors, affecting private and public town planning is evident throughout Tidewater Towns. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if Reps had simply provided an annotated bibliog- raphy of town maps and plans. Such a volume or volumes, profusely illustrated, would have been a remarkable and useful contribution to urban history and the history of the Chesapeake. Reps chose to do otherwise and as a consequence it is not as easy as it might have been to derive maximum benefit from his obviously extensive knowledge of the sources for city planning in colonial Virginia and Maryland.

Maryland Hall of Records EDWARD C. PAPENFUSE

Political Parties before the Constitution. By Jackson Turner Main. (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1973. Pp. xx, 481. $15.95.)

In this study of political activity prior to the Constitution, Professor Main argues that the politics of the period were neither chaotic nor constituted exclusively of factions. While conceding that great variety characterized the political history of the thirteen states during the 1780s and that each experienced a separate development, he contends that they faced many identical problems which stimulated similar responses. The most notable of these was the emergence in each state of two major, opposing political blocs—labeled Cosmopolitans and Localists—which habitually confronted each other on most of the major issues of the Confederation. These issues and their accompanying tensions culminated with the ratification of the Federal Constitution. Its adoption involved the great questions over which the competing blocs had divided—relations between the states and Congress, public debt, taxes, paper money, slavery, land policy, the court system, and a host of others— and constituted the bitterest of all the struggles. While not central to his study. Main indicates that these divisions continued into the early national period with Cosmopolitans becoming Federalists and Localists becoming Jeffersonian Republicans. With the aid of a computer Main analyzed roll call votes in all the state legislatures; this enabled him to identify the two major blocs in each state and to note that the parties in each state shared characteristics with those of others and divided on the same issues. Having established these legislative blocs, he searched for biographical information on the individual legislators constituting the parties. The core of his analysis involved information on 1,503 legislators in seven states and 1,500 roll calls. The information derived from the biographical data, when correlated with bloc affiliation, together with the analysis of voting behavior produced a general interpretation of political alignments before the Constitution. Fully realizing that to summarize is to do injury to the complexity and detail of this work, a summation is nonetheless all that can be attempted. Briefly stated. Main contends that the primary determinants of an individual's adherence to a bloc stemmed from his residence (or the 102 Maryland Historical Magazine nature of his constituency), occupation, wealth, and world view. Cosmopolitans represented above all the towns and commercial farming areas; most were engaged in occupations other than farming, were relatively more wealthy, and held a more sophisticated world view than their opponents. For their part, Localists were overwhelmingly small property holders, engaged in farming, and possessed of a provincial world view. Main holds that once the composition of the separate legislative parties is clearly understood, "their attitudes toward the issues of the day are seen to form a logical, consistent whole, and the patterns made by their voting becomes natural, if not indeed inevitable." (p. 392) Following the Revolution the agrarian-localists attempted to curb government costs because they benefited very little from such expenditures: they held few offices and few certificates, and for the most part took care of their own needs themselves and thus asked only to be left alone. Therefore, they bitterly resented paying taxes on land or other necessities; indeed they believed that if other people wanted the government to spend money, they should tax themselves. Representing small property holders from relatively poor communities, always short of money, Localists favored debtor relief and a more plentiful supply of money at low interest rates. They opposed banks and other desires of urban businessmen and resisted the return of well-to-do loyalists for fear they might support the other side. They exhibited a narrow-mindedness compounded of antiloyalist and anti-British prejudice, a skepticism about state-supported colleges, a reluctance to obey the British treaty, and an unwillingness to grant power to Congress to form a strong central government. Main contends that Localists trusted only themselves and therefore be- lieved in a simple democracy where they could regulate their own affairs without external in- terference from groups they perceived as hostile and very likely corrupt outsiders. In the mind of the commercial-cosmopolitans, "almost everything that governments did was beneficial as long as they themselves exercised power—as, in one way or another, they generally could." (p. 395) They favored payment of the public debt, both because they received the interest and principal and because they believed in the credit, solvency, and good reputation of government. In addition, they benefited from and recognized the reason for competent officials with good salaries, the establishment of courts, the improvement of transportation, government aid to economic growth and a stable monetary system, as well as government responsibility for order and stability. They happily consented to pay money for these benefits, but insisted that everyone else do the same through the prompt payment of taxes which they imposed. In addition, private obligations should be held as sacred as public ones. These men and their constituents believed in the authority of government, supported Congress, and therefore voted nearly unanimously in favor of the Constitution. Being urbane men of broad views. Cosmopolitans easily forgave Loyalists, supported colleges, and favored the economic and cultural growth of towns. "The kind of democracy advocated by the other side they regarded as menacing, because it meant government by narrow men, who possessed little or no property, were unfit to rule, and really sought no government at all." (p. 395) Main's book represents a skillful blending of computer techniques with traditional methodology; each reinforces the other and strengthens the final result. The book provides an example of the solid research necessary if social history is to be meaningful and if scholars are to determine the relationship between "rhetoric" and "reality." More specifically. Main's research indicates that the first American party system adapted to and modified pre-existent state blocs rather than arising within Congress and eventually spreading to the states. In addition, he reveals that parties possessed unifying ideologies or interests and that their Reviews of Recent Books 103

members sought power not for its own sake but to accomplish specific aims. In sum. Main has written an impressive work.

University of Oklahoma RoBtRT E. SHALHOPE

Maryland: The Federalist Years. By L. Marx Renzulli, Jr. (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickin- son University Press, 1972. Pp. xvi, 354. $15.00.)

Both the scholarly community and the general reading public have long needed a solid, comprehensive monograph covering the Federalist period in Maryland. L. Marx Renzulli has filled the void with a thoroughly researched, balanced, and detailed political history of Maryland in the years between Confederation and the Era of Good Feelings. One has the distinct feeling that no appropriate manuscript collection escaped him and that he was equally at home in the newspaper and broadside collections of the Maryland Historical Society. The work is impeccably researched in terms of primary source material. One of the great strengths of Renzulli's work is that he avoids one of the dangers common to all who work in the field of Maryland history: the Baltimore-Annapolis syndrome. The history of the Federalist era in Maryland was not confined to the two great political and cultural centers of the state, as Renzulli ably demonstrates in his treatment of the strength of the party in rural western Maryland, the politics of the division between the "Potomac faction" and the Chesapeake alignment, and the anti-urban tendencies of the party. There are only a few minor omissions, the most notable being the failure in the final three chapters of the work really to come to grips with the controversy created by David H. Fischer's contentions regarding the political renaissance engineered by the younger Federalists in Maryland after 1801. Renzulli does suggest in the final pages that the party would "not adopt the devices of mass political organization so successfully used by the Republican op- position." All in all, however, it is a needed work and the task has been carried off well. Renzulli captures the essential nature of Maryland Federalism—the Messianic complex of the party, the fact that it functioned most ably in times of economic crisis and social dislocation, its inability to react to constructive opposition, and the conservative philosophy which prevented it from making peace with the nineteenth century.

Towson State College JOSEPH W. COX

Seeds of Extinction. Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian. By Bernard W. Sheehan. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1972. Pp. ix, 301. $11.95.)

This is not a book about Indians. Rather, the unique contribution of Sheehan's book lies in its explication of the sources and motivations which underlay the early nineteenth century Jeffersonians' perceptions of the Indian and determined their views on government Indian 104 Maryland Historical Magazine policy. As the author phrases it, he has set out to explain "how the white American's conception of himself and his position on the continent formed his perception of the Indian and directed his selection of policy towardsthenativetribes."(p. ix) The book is conceived in three parts: Metaphysics, Program, and Illusions. "Metaphysics" concerns the conceptual framework which Western European Man erected to explain the presence of man in the New World. This first part surveys the philosophical assumptions that encompassed the problem of the Indian's origins, his deficiencies, the concept of the Noble Savage, and the effects of environmentalism on the Indian. According to Sheehan, it was the Jeffersonians' assumptions about environmental effects that proved most important in their grappling with what they saw as the "Indian problem"; in their view, environmentalism was of cardinal importance in the transformation of the "savage" into civilized man. How the Jeffersonians set about to accomplish this transformation is the subject of the second part, "Program." In the period between the Revolution and the late 1820s, transformation or incorporation, as Sheehan terms the process, was the driving force behind government Indian policy which either directed benevolent activities or set up the rules under which philanthropic organizations operated. As Sheehan amply demonstrates, the complexity of the problem of transforming diverse Indian cultures into the Western European pattern was never fully realized by the Jeffersonians, who tended to see incorporation only as a natural process dictated by natural laws. Convinced of the certainty of social evolution, the Jeffersonians launched their melioristic programs with a great deal of enthusiasm. While education and religion served as the main agents in change, they did not ignore bribery and other forms of manipulation in their haste to move the Indian from "savagery" to civilization. The logic of the book's structure requires that part three, entitled "Illusions," depict the decline of the Jeffersonians' ideals, and so it does. The realities of culture change did not mesh with the Jeffersonians' perceptions of what ought to be. Violence (on both sides) and the disintegration of Indian cultures shattered the illusions of many Jeffersonian philanthropists. As Sheehan sees it, political expediency, economic factors, and a more realistic appraisal of the situation resulted in growing support for Indian removal by 1830. Even the many philanthro- pists who had earlier opposed removal were advocating it by the late 1820s as the only means to keep alive their illusions of converting the Indian into a white man. So tenacious was the dream that many Jeffersonians felt that only more time was necessary for the transformation to be completed. While Sheehan's book goes far in expanding our understanding of this period's views of the Indian, especially in regard to the problem of removal, there are some weaknesses. The structure lends itself to a "rise and fall" interpretation of the missionary and educational efforts of philanthropists. In "Metaphysics" Sheehan correctly notes the close relationship between environmentalism and monogenism, but contrary to his implication, this relationship did not preclude the polygenists from at times also using environmentalism to support their arguments. While environmentalism was a widely held concept, it does not necessarily follow that monogenism also was. Sheehan's reference to "the universalizing tendency of an age that considered the unity of mankind axiomatic" (p. 46) is misleading, for the unity of man was not so general a belief as Sheehan assumes. Certainly by the late 1820s monogenism was coming under heavy attack by polygenists. Some of the sources which Sheehan quotes in substantiation of the broad acceptance of this belief produced their arguments in defense of the disputed concept of monogenism. One might wonder if there was not also a polygenetic Indian philanthropy and how it differed from the strongly monogenetic philanthropy of the Jeffersonians. Reviews of Recent Books 105

Two topics covered too briefly by Sheehan are philology and mound archaeology. While he brings both into his discussion of attempts to determine the origins of the Indian, he overlooks their significance in raising questions on the unity of man and on the capability of the Indian to progress to civilization. For many eighteenth century thinkers, whether or not the Indian could progress was still very much an open question. One theory held that the Indian had actually degenerated from a higher level of civilization and that this process of degeneration was irreversible. While aware of this interpretation, which he variously terms "decline" or "declension," Sheehan does not really clarify when "decline" refers to degeneration (the irreversible decline from a higher state) and when to the declension in Indian cultures resulting from the contact situation. Sheehan demonstrates a thorough knowledge of his sources, but there are times when he might have questioned them more closely. For example, he seems to accept at face value J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur's praise of Indian custom and society, but he does not explore the reason for Crevecoeur's praise or question whether it was issued in a propagandistic vein. In spite of these minor weaknesses, I find that Sheehan has written a basically sound, valuable book. Seeds of Extinction will certainly be indispensible to anyone attempting to discover the rationale behind early government policy deriving from Jeffersonian thought.

Center for the History of the American Indian, ROBKRT E. BIEDER The Newberry Library

Anne RoyaWs U.S.A. By Bessie Rowland James. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1972. Pp. viii, 447. S15.00.)

Anne Royall (1769- 1854) did not approve of strenuous abolitionists, the bloomer costume, or women's suffrage advocacy. In such ways she was a conventional woman of her time. But she possessed none of the idealized virtues of womanhood listed by historian Barbara Welter: purity, piety, domesticity, and submissiveness. She is interesting now because she was exceptional, and Bessie Rowland James's biography, which is descriptive rather than analytical, provides the necessary material for appreciation of her life. Born in Baltimore, Anne Newport grew up on the frontier in Pennsylvania and Virginia and was supported by her mother, a house servant twice widowed. At age twenty-eight, after living in his house and acquiring from him a taste for books, she married William Royall. He was about twenty-five years older, possessed of some wealth by inheritance, a tobacco planter, and an alcoholic. After his death in 1812, his family broke his will and she was left with no inheritance. At forty-three she was on her own. She continually sought a government pension as the widow of a Revolutionary War officer, but she received nothing until she was seventy-nine. In the meantime she made her own way, not to wealth but to prominence and independence. For years after her husband's death she toured America, wrote accounts of her travels, and promoted the sale of her own books. She led a difficult and dangerous life in these years. She was twice seriously assulted by men who had taken offense at her verbal abuse. Most especially she contended with evangelicals. She castigated anti-masons and said repeatedly that evangelical ministers were mercenary bigots. She was once convicted and fined for being a "common scold." A minister had set up prayer meetings in front of her residence, seeking her deliverance, and she committed a legal offense when in her anger she called him "a damned old bald-headed son of a bitch." 106 Maryland Historical Magazine

Having spent much time in Washington after 1812, and knowing personally the major political figures, in 1831 she began a weekly journal of opinion, a venture that continued for over twenty years (called Paul Pry until 1836 and then The Huntress). Her main concerns, in addition to evangelicals, were political corruption and preservation of the Union. She criticized the Jacksonians, and later the Free-Soilers, as politicians dedicated to office-holding rather than to policies. She praised Henry Clay for conceiving the Compromise of 1850. Throughout her journalistic career she was an imposing figure, as even the President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, had recognized when in 1827 he wrote about her in his diary: "Mrs. Royall . . . continues to make herself noxious to many persons, tolerated by some and feared by others; by her deportment and her books; treating all with a familiarity which often passes for impudence, insulting those who treat her with incivility, and then lampooning them in her books. Stripped of all her sex's delicacy, but unable to forfeit its privilege of gentle treatment from the other, she goes about like a virago errant in enchanted armor, and redeems herself from the cravings of indigence by the notoreity of her eccentricities and the forced currency they give to her publications." Despite the bad humor in the particular remark, Adams really liked her. It is apparent, however, that her deviation from accepted womanly behavior perplexed him. Perhaps he had forgotten that many years before, in 1786, he had complained to his mother that pretty girls were too often foolish and "like the beautiful apple that is insipid or disgusting to the taste." Adams might have had difficulty in defining precisely proper womanly deportment. Fortu- nately for her Anne Royall never worried about such matters.

Towson State College FRED M. RIVERS

The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. By John W. Blassingame. (New York; Oxford University Press, 1972. Pp. xv, 262. $7.95.)

Many historians studying American slavery have complained about the lack of information as to what the slaves themselves thought about slavery, and yet, at the time they made these complaints, some five thousand autobiographical narratives, written or dictated by slaves, were to be found in libraries. Part of the reason for the ignoring of these sources, as Mr. Blassingame points out, was the belief that the slave, "as the primary sufferer in the institution, was unable to give an objective account of bondage"; but the author also states the obvious fact that few, if any, individuals "are able to give completely objective accounts of things and persons with whom they were associated intimately." Bias and subjectivity are constant characteristics of all historical sources, and the task of the historian of slavery is to use "the tests commonly applied to historical documents" on these narratives, not to reject them in tow. The author also has read widely in psychological literature, and uses the insights gained (oftentimes effectively, as even a prejudiced critic is reluctantly forced to admit) as a means of setting forth tentative explanations of the actions and thoughts of the slaves. The result is a valuable description of slavery as experienced by the slave that occasionally is sharply corrective of previous writers, but which, on the whole, confirms the findings of these few historians who have tried to describe the lives and experiences of the slaves using the same and other sources. Reviews of Recent Books 107

One weakness in the book is a tendency to present particular circumstances and events as general truths, a fault perhaps brought on by his title, which seems to imply that plantations in the antebellum South essentially were all alike and that there was a single slave community. This, to some degree, was true. All slaves, throughout the two centuries and a half the institution endured, experienced harassment, mistreatment, even cruelty and persecution, by whites, but nevertheless their situation differed depending on a wide variety of circumstances. Small farms, with few slaves, growing a wide variety of crops in the mountain valleys and the Lexington and Nashville basins, were not the same as the large cotton, rice, and sugar plantations, and blacks in the long settled areas of Maryland, Virginia, and parts of the Carolinas had a different experience from those in the later opened areas. The author does not entirely ignore these differences. His interest, however, is on other phases of the story, on such matters as African cultural survivals, family life, and the slaves' patterns of behavior; and in regard to these, he has supplied much useful information and some new interpretations.

University of Oregon THOMAS P. Go VAN

Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought. By Lewis Perry. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London, 1973. Pp. xvi, 328. $14.50.)

Not so long ago, abolitionism was a fashionable, inspired topic for historical inquiry. Like the Civil Rights movement that lent it special meaning, antislavery studies have seen better days. Yet, the declension from high academic favor is not a total loss. The field is now clear from the debris of "relevance," particularly for the scholar with an abiding sense of the integrity and unmalleable nature of past events. One of these rare spirits is Lewis Perry. Radical Abolitionism will not awaken flagging reform hopes, much as reinspiration is needed, but the work has more to say about the religious premises, tensions, and confusions within the white abolitionist movement than most of the historical outpourings of the 1960s. Perry discovers three central ideas behind the anarchistic impulse of radical reformers: the sovereignty of God, the millennial promise, and the moral government of God. This theo- logical trinity was at war with slavery because abolitionists believed that southern slave owner- ship signified evil rebellion against God's masterhood over all men; insured the postponement of a new Earth under divine rule; and finally, represented an obstacle to the moral government that God intended for human, particularly American embrace. As a result antislavery was more than an attempt to free slaves. It was a mechanism for the self-liberation of abolitionists from the shackles of sin, an aim granting southern blacks little role to play. Moreover, the re- formers' arrogation of divine command (the prophet's insistent claim) not only alienated them from mediational institutions—especially the church and state—but inevitably led to an ex- plosion of idiosyncratic revelations about God's ultimate designs. Thus, Perry uses anarchy in a double sense: as a term defining the abolitionists' hopes for a purified, godly world, free of the compromises with sin in ordinary institutional and social relations; and as the general chaos of contradictory ideas about the nature of man and God that this vision engendered. Perry concentrates upon the tortuous disputes that separated religious radicals—Garrisoni- ans and Liberty party activists; non-resisters and no-organization men; pacifist communitarians and violent antinomians. Each group (and there were other ones as well) conceived the new 108 Maryland Historical Magazine

Utopia in rather antithetical ways, generally without much awareness of internal ambiguities but with sharp critical insight about the faults of opponents. For instance, Nathaniel Rogers, one of the most fascinating thinkers in the movement, sought complete freedom in all relations, even with God Himself, but his logic, though stressing the dynamics of words as a form of action, allowed no practical means for other kinds of routine agitation. Yet, Rogers's position enabled him to see clearly the limitations of military or legal emancipation; liberation under such circumstances, he advised, would simply create "free niggers" unless white men's hearts were also transformed. A short review can scarcely do justice to the strange and intricate threads of romantic thought that Perry unravels with such impressive mastery. Two examples of his insights must suffice. The author furnishes evidence of a lower-class "come-outerism'" in the factories of Lynn, Massachusetts, a millennial vision reminiscent of the Reformation peasant movements as Norman Cohn described them. Second, the author sees the Liberty party as an experiment in moral government through partisan activity, a basically religious effort with which Garrisonian "come-outers" had more in common than they would ever admit. Yet, there are problems, too. First, anarchy as the guiding theme was ill-chosen. The word has acquired meanings that the author is compelled to strip away. Probably the world "antinomianism." which is theologically and psychologically more appropriate to the nature of root-and-branch radicalism, would have provided him with a concept of an evolutionary character. It could have covered all the factions and still encompassed specifically anarchistic ideas. A result would have been the better integration of such peculiarities as spirit-rapping and sexual experimentation into the structure of the work as a whole. Also, Perry might well have examined in some detail the conservative millennialists of the era as a means of comparison with his radical visionaries. (Ernest Sandeen's Roots of Fundamentalism (1970) that so brilliantly analyses the dispensationalists may not, however, have been available for Perry's use.) These are not damaging complaints. Radical Abolitionism shares the laurels of penetrating scholarship with Aileen Kraditor's Means and Ends in American Abolitionism, the only other work to treat abolitionist thought with the seriousness it deserves. At last we can grasp the meaning of the crusade, not merely as a forerunner for modern racial efforts but as a cause with the desperation, zeal, and mystery that belong to all movements that arise, define an age, and then recede, leaving traces faint and lively and legacies both unrecoverable and contemporaneous.

Case Western Reserve Universitv BERTRAM WVATT-BROWN

Memoirs of a Swiss Officer in the American Civil War. Edited and introduced by Heinz K. Meier. (Bern and Frankfurt: Herbert Lang, 1972. Pp. 183.)

Both the number and scope of publications regarding Swiss participation in the American Civil War have been scant. Above the company level only a single organization, the Fifteenth Missouri regiment (Swiss Rifles), was predominantly Swiss. Writings on this unit are almost non-existent; the same applies to other units with a heavy concentration of Swiss, such as the Garibaldi Guard and the Ninth New York Militia. Other writings by Swiss participants are also meager. Only a few have been published in the United States, such as the reminiscences of Emil Frey, later president of the Swiss Confederation, in the North American Review. Thus the translation of Rudolf Aschmann's 1865 DrieJahre in der Potomac-Armee odereine Reviews of Recent Books 109

Schweizer Schutzen-Compagnie im nordamerikanischen Kriege is a genuine contribution to the literature of foreign participation in the war. Young Aschmann, a native of the Lake of Zur- ich region, had migrated to the United States by 1861, for reasons the editor was unable to discern. In 1861 Aschmann signed up as a volunteer in a special outfit recruited in New York, the famed Berdan's First U. S. Sharpshooters. He later explained that his commitment to the war was motivated by concern for the slavery issue. Perhaps as well, he viewed the war as a potentially exciting experience. He recalled that "we Swiss especially were under the illusion that this struggle would be like the Sonderbundskrieg. We thought it would be of short duration and laurels could be easily won." Aschmann was soon disillusioned, and his narrative is an account of war weariness, horror at the carnage he witnessed, and weariness at the drudgery of daily soldierly life. From the summer of 1861 to the siege of Petersburg in 1865. Aschmann served with the sharpshooters. Although the book is a contribution to Civil War writing, it does contain two faults. One is the style of Aschmann's writing. He wrote for Swiss readers, and sought to incorporate into his own reminiscences a general history of campaigns. Hence more interesting personal matters are sacrificed to rather tedious accounts of battles which could be garnered in any general history. Also, it is unfortunate that the editor could not have included more information on Aschmann in his introduction. Such factors as his background in Switzerland, the time of and motives for his coming to the United States, his personality and physical appearance—all would have provided a better background to the narrative.

Universitv of South Carolina THOMAS L. CONNELLY

Invisible Immigrants: The Adaptation of English and Scottish Immigrants in Nineteenth-Cen- tury America. By Charlotte Erickson. (Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1972. Pp. vii, 531. $17.50.)

Charlotte Erickson, Senior Lecturer in Economic History at the London School of Economics and author of American Industry and the European Immigrant. 1865-85, has with this volume made yet another important contribution to American immigration history. Erickson's "Invisible Immigrants" are ordinary Englishmen and Scots who heretofore had been recorded only in the immigration statistics of the nineteenth century. Through this collection of their letters supported by meticulous research on the background in Britain and the United States, the author has rendered several score of them as visible, full-bodied persons. Erickson's exhaustive examination of private emigrant letters, which goes much beyond those reprinted here, has enabled her to test the generalizations of immigration history against the actual experiences of particular individuals. The bulk of the volume is devoted to family correspondence between members in America and their kin in Britain. Unlike many "America letters" these were private letters, not intended for publication. Thus they express the intimate concerns of ordinary persons, rather than propaganda statements for or against emigration written by publicists. These letters, rich in details of everyday life and in expressions of immigrant attitudes, are a valuable source for social history. Invisible Immigrants, however, is much more than another collection of "America letters." 110 Maryland Historical Magazine

In her commentary, Erickson provides a penetrating analysis of the processes of migration and adaptation of British immigrants to nineteenth-century America. The author divided the volume into three parts according to the American occupations of the immigrants: argiculture; industry: and professional, commercial, and clerical occupations. Considering the motives for emigration, the networks of distribution, and the economic and social adjustment for each of these categories, she found significant differences among the three groups. The majority of the British who came prior to 1850 turned to agriculture for their livelihood. Seeking a way of life rather than quick economic success, they were drawn to the lands of the Old Northwest. Those who moved from farming in Great Britain to farming in the United States, Erickson noted, had the best chance of realizing a satisfactory adjustment, both economic and social. Craftsmen and tradesmen, on the other hand, inspired by the agrarian myth but unprepared for farming, often met with failure and returned to urban pursuits. The author, however, argues that the dream of rural independence in America served as a safety valve against urban and industrial discontent in England. Erickson concludes that the private letter, rather than immigrant recruitment agencies, was the principal source of information while the family network provided the principal means of distribution of British immigrants to the agricultural regions. A paucity of letters from the second half of the nineteenth century and from manufacturing centers hampered Erickson's research on industrial immigrants. Her collections are more typical of "tramping artisans" who brought pre-industrial skills with them to the United States. Indeed, these letters provide excellent evidence for Herbert Gutman's thesis that traditional artisan work habits and attitudes persisted in industrializing America. A quest for modest economic improvement, rather than dire poverty, motivated the emigration of these workmen. Unlike the agriculturists, the immigrants in industry were more likely to be single men, many of whom eventually returned to Britain. Thus the British emigration prefigured a pattern of repatriation once thought peculiar to the "new immigration." Less tied to family, the industrial immigrants still relied upon a network of relatives as well as workmates to find employment. British workers concentrated in particular industries such as mining and textiles, forming dense immigrant communities. Unfortunately few letters have survived which illustrate this phase of the immigration. Part III on immigrants in professional, commercial, and clerical occupations is entitled "The Uprooted." These white-collar workers, Erickson found, were more likely to make a complete break with family, friends, and previous occupation. Emigrating for personal reasons, often a family quarrel, they tended to have high ambitions for social status and achievement. Although in social origins not unlike the farmers and skilled workers, they were distinguished by careers of extreme geographic and social mobility. Dependent on neither family nor trade network, they were more completely incorporated into American society. Yet Erickson concludes that this group was not outstanding in economic success and experienced an unsatisfactory social adaptation. Indeed, this series of letters is the most tragic in the volume, reflective of lives blighted by alienation and conflict. A large proportion of these white-collar workers spent their last years as lonely, destitute old men. Erickson's work demolishes the myth, previously challenged by Rowland Berthoff, that Englishmen and Scots were unlike other immigrants. In their own words, they made it clear that they felt themselves to be "strangers in a strange land." Rather than a quick and easy assimilation, the author describes the British experience as one of accomodation within their own ethnic communities. For them as for others, the immigrant community made "the migration experience bearable for the mass of immigrants." Except for those who were isolated Reviews of Recent Books 1 11 from family and friends. Erickson did not find evidence in the letters of "tragic personal disorientation." This volume, rich in seasoned scholarship and dense with the stuff of human experience, is particularly welcome at a time when so much work in social history has a hasty, arid, and one-dimensional quality to it.

Center for Immigration Studies. RUDOLPH J. VECOLI University of Minnesota

John Dos Passos' Path to USA: A Political Biography, 1912-1936. By Melvin Landsberg. (Boulder. Colorado Associated University Press, 1973. Pp. 292. S10.00.)

There is no important divergence of opinion about John Dos Passos's stature in the literary history of the United States in the Twentieth Century. It is monumental. To borrow a meta- phor from sub-atomic physics, he, with Faulkner and Hemingway, knocked the American novel into a new orbit, releasing a terrific burst of energy in dozens of writers of lesser, but still impressive intellectual size. But the significance of a feat of such magnitude is never immediately apparent, for the dust of controversy obscures it, often for years and sometimes for generations. John Dos Passos died on September 28, 1970, so while it is clear that he belongs in the Pantheon, his precise location there will not be decided for a long time to come. This is clearly understood by Professor Landsberg (he is an associate professor of English at the University of Kansas), so he has not attempted a definitive biography, but merely a study of one phase of his subject's life, his political development, which Landsberg is sure culminated in the three novels. The 42nd Parallel, Nineteen Nineteen, and The Big Money, subsequently published in one volume under the title U.S.A. This trilogy is, in Landsberg's opinion, the masterpiece on which Dos Passos's fame will hinge. Perhaps so—as respects the literary artist, one dare say almost certainly so. But by this same account the trilogy itself traces the metamorphosis of a rather far-out radical into a moderate conservative. Granting that Dos Passos, the artist, produced nothing surpassing U.S.A., the fact remains that Dos Passos, the political philosopher, afterward wrote a study of democratic theory, The Head and Heart of Thomas Jefferson, that, although too much neglected, is in its own genre as masterly as his best fiction. Within his self-imposed limits, however, Landsberg is highly plausible, and if he had made his title "John Dos Passos Through U.S.A." he would have been invulnerable. He had the advantage of long conversations with Dos Passos during his last years in Baltimore, and Lands- berg's assertion that his subject considered himself always more Veblenite than Marxian may be accepted as authoritative. The trilogy is, in fact, a record of the progression of a completely honest, but originally highly opinionated man, into tolerance of a woefully imperfect world. His utter loathing of Woodrow Wilson, expressed in Nineteen Nineteen, is explicable by the fact that they were so much alike in their common obsession with the belief that truth is a unity instead of a conjunction of positive and negative, expressed in oriental philosophy by yin and yang and in western science by Bohr's mathematical theory with the tongue-twisting name of "complementarity," which admits the possibility of the positron and anti-matter as aspects of truth. Undoubtedly, Landsberg is right in asserting that the trilogy is the most vivid and accurate 112 Maryland Historical Magazine picture that we have of a critical period in the history of the republic and so will retain lasting value as a historical document. Yet one may venture the guess that as a record of the way in which the relentless pressure of its own honesty forced a powerful intelligence out of an ob- session with dogma and into a closer touch with reality, it will retain its fascination when the political history of our time has lost all but antiquarian interest.

Baltimore GERALD W. JOHNSON

Ceramics in America. Edited by Ian M. G. Quimby. (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1973. Pp. xii, 374. $4.50.)

These essays were presented at the Eighteenth Annual Winterthur Conference in March 1972, its purpose being to investigate the "cultural information with which all ceramic objects are invested." Bernard L. Fontana said in the keynote address that we have not yet "cracked the code" of the "language of man-made objects." Fontana's statement is particularly true for ceramics. The vast majority of ceramic books have been written for the collector and are usually descriptive accounts of artistic and non-utilitarian ceramics. The common ceramic ob- ject, and the one of greatest cultural information, has been used, broken, and discarded and is certainly not "collectable" in the normal sense. Because of this the ability to interpret these artifacts as social documents has been dependent upon the advance of American historical archaeology, a development which is only recent. Much of the strength of this volume is based upon the use of recent finds in such excavations which are revolutionizing the methods of view- ing the common ceramic utensil. Ivor Noel Hume, America's premier archaeological ceramist and a contributor, noted that "the study of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramics is still in its infancy," and even with a great amount of new archaeological data "our knowledge is but a drop in the bucket." There are three types of articles in the report. Several center about English and American ceramic production, a popular subject for the ceramic historian. Subjects included are an early eighteenth century "poor potter" in Yorktown, Moravian potters in North Carolina, potters in Cheesequake, New Jersey, and the nineteenth-century Tucker porcelain factory in Phila- delphia. Another concerns the manufacture and importation of Staffordshire salt glazed stoneware, one of the popular ceramic forms in Colonial America. Another smaller group of articles concerns non-English and non-American ceramics. There is an excellent survey of the cultural significance of Spanish ceramics and a study of the French dominated Fort Louisburg, an area where some English and even American ceramics were also evident. C. Malcolm Wat- kins of the Smithsonian Institution has a short essay comparing these two studies and com- menting on the general pattern of ceramic use in America. The last group represent a com- parison between archaeological and the more traditional documentary research techniques. Two articles contrast these approaches in describing Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the years 1635-1835 and likewise two articles on the early eighteenth century John Hicks site in St. Mary's City, Maryland. It is this group which is the most notable contribution to the re- port. They not only provide full social portraits concentrated about ceramics but exhibit the value the collaboration of the different methods can bring. It should be mentioned that Ceramics in America is not a popular book. It is often highly technical with lengthy detailed descriptions of artifacts or production procedures and often Reviews of Recent Books 113 with numerous statistical charts and surveys. Yet, the book is a notable addition to American social history, and it is hoped historians analyzing American culture will begin to consult more than they have the findings of archaeology these essays reflect. The readers of this magazine who are interested in colonial Maryland will enjoy the articles by Lois Carr and Garry Wheeler Stone on the Hicks site, combined forming perhaps one of the best social reconstructions of a Maryland area in that period studied thus far.

Maryland Historical Society RICHARD J. Cox

Archives and Manuscript Collections of Dickinson College: A Guide. Compiled by Charles Coleman Sellers and Martha Calvert Slotten, assisted by Roberta Adam Vincett. (Carlisle, Pa.: Friends of the Dickinson College Library, 1972. Pp. iii, 67. $5.00.)

This slim paperback was compiled as part of the bicentennial history of Dickinson College, being celebrated in 1973. It was published to assist the researcher and show the progress that institution has had in collecting and the resultant strengths. Great strides have been made since the appointment in 1932 of the First Curator of Dickinsoniana, Dr. Boyd Lee Spahr. At that time the goals were more limited—to collect papers pertaining to the college and its notable alumni, particularly President James Buchanan and Roger Brooke Taney. But soon the ho- rizons expanded to include all United States presidents, literary figures like John Drinkwater, Carl Sandburg, Sherwood Anderson, Joel Chandler Harris, and influential men like Henry Ward Beecher, Alexander Graham Bell, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Carnegie, and scores of others. There are also collections including many Maryland names—all easily located by the index: James Mason Campbell, Daniel Coit Gilman, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Reverdy Johnson, Francis Scott Key, Benjamin H. and John H. B. Latrobe, Brantz and Charles F. Mayer, H. L. Mencken, George Peabody, Rembrandt Peale, Tench Tilghman and others. Some are repre- sented by only one letter, others much more. The notable Roger Brooke Taney collection con- tains almost 2000 papers from the files of his Frederick law office. From its relatively small beginnings and restricted scope, the Dickinson College archives have expanded to over 500,000 manuscript papers. The guide will be especially useful to researchers who will now be made aware of Dickinson's holdings. And this publication should demonstrate to all friends and Friends of the Dickinson College Library that this small col- lege has amassed a remarkable body of original manuscripts.

Baltimore NANCY G. BOIES

A History of Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends: Three Hundred Years of Quakerism in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Central Pennsylvania. By Bliss Forbush. (Sandy Spring: Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends, 1973. Pp. 174. S3.00 plus 50 cents handling.)

In this small volume. Dr. Bliss Forbush has produced a compact sketch of three hundred years of Quakerism in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Central Pennsyl- 114 Maryland Historical Magazine vania. Quite naturally, the brevity forced upon him by his editorial committee has required him to slight some areas (in toto or in part) that might have been dealt with. Nevertheless, the author has created a useful and solid introduction to the history of Baltimore Yearly Meet- ing—with an amazing amount of detail, considering the size of the work. The historical value of the book is enhanced by the addition of an appendix which contains information concerning known clerks (presiding officers) of the Yearly Meeting, as well as the membership statistics of the various constituent meetings for 1950, 1960, and 1970, thereby showing some of the more recent growth patterns. A very helpful bibliography (although lacking some significant items) is also included. Dr. Forbush, who is well known for his books on Elias Hicks and Moses Sheppard, is at his best in describing the separation of 1828 and the recent unification developments. He also presents an interesting survey of such areas as Quakers and politics, business, and philan- thropy. There are a few minor blemishes in the work, some of which might be attributed to a "com- mittee" effort and to the space limitations imposed upon the author by that arrangement. Not all meetings which have been a part of Baltimore Yearly Meeting (originally Maryland Yearly Meeting) are mentioned in this work. Also there are, unfortunately, a number of factual errors which should be noted: There is no evidence that Elizabeth Harris traveled to Rome to see the Pope and then returned to Maryland (p. 6); Margaret Lynam lived on the Western Shore rather than the Eastern Shore (p. 10); Virginia's two Eastern Shore counties are meant rather than "northern counties" on p. 13; not all of the "sixty such messengers" who came to America between 1655 and 1662 came to Maryland (p. 15); although some meetings were transferred to Baltimore Yearly Meeting in 1790, others were not surrendered by Philadelphia Yearly Meet- ing until a generation later (p. 32); William Southeby removed from Sassafras to Talbot County about 1678 and did not go on to Delaware and Pennsylvania until 1684, after helping build old Third Haven Meeting House in Easton (p. 41); and Norman Morrison was at Stony Run Meeting rather than at its predecessor. Park Avenue Meeting (p. 125).

Southern Methodist University KENNETH L. CARROLL

History of the Town of Glen Burnie. By Ruth P. Eason. (Glen Burnie, Md.: The Kuethe Li- brary, Inc., 1972. Pp. ix, 220. S6.50.)

The writing of local history offers the dedicated amateur a rare opportunity in today's spe- cialized world. Mrs. Eason's compilation is an excellent example of the contribution that can be made, as well as an indication of some things to be avoided. Born and raised in the area of her study, Mrs. Eason writes her History of the Town of Glen Burnie with obvious affection and firsthand knowledge. In addition her book, superbly pub- lished under the auspices of the Trustees of the Kuethe Library, contains several score of fascinating photographs which enhance the story of the town from a mild beginning in the 1880s to today's position as the hub of northern Anne Arundel County. The History touches briefly on the Curtis Creek Furnace, an eighteenth century enterprise of the Dorsey family, and several of the nineteenth and twentieth century families that were prominent in the evolution and growth of the area. These include the Glenns, who owned, platted, and initially developed the town; the Kuethes, who were and are so instrumental in the Reviews of Recent Books 1 1 5 town's growth; the Woodfalls, Brayshaws and Hamlens, all of whom contributed a share to the development and lore of Glen Burnie. Students of our current folkways will be interested in the coverage given the "Big Glen Burnie Carnival," inaugurated in 1908 to raise funds for community projects and in continu- ous yearly operation ever since. Although modern thrill rides have replaced the early jousting tournaments, the atmosphere of community involvement has been retained. Mrs. Eason's compilation devotes chapters of varying thoroughness to the industry and commerce of the Glen Burnie area and to community facilities, services, churches, schools, and so forth. These include brief histories of the fire, police, and health organizations as well as the postal and telephone services. The prominent role of the Glen Burnie Improvement Association in community affairs is emphasized throughout. Facts and trivia of early years have been nostalgically recorded and contribute greatly to the charm of the book. The History contains in addition the names of hundreds of local residents who participated in the town's activities in times too quickly forgotten. Mrs. Eason has relied heavily on newspaper articles for much of her information. While this adds greatly to the human interest value of her story, there is always the question of ac- curacy inherent in such sources. Largely understated is the critical impact on the commercial vitality of the town made by the plethora of shopping and professional centers mushrooming in the area in recent years. The researcher is further cautioned that the index is inadequate. All in all, however, this is a long first step forward in recognizing the importance of one of Baltimore's neglected but most vibrant suburban areas.

Glen Burnie MARK NORTON SCHATZ BOOK NOTES

/ Didn't Know Thai! An Exhibition of First Happenings in Maryland. By Edgar Heyl. (Balti- more: Maryland Historical Society, 1973. Pp. x, 61. $3.00.) Those familiar with the Maryland Historical Society know its tradition of periodically mounting major exhibitions on a variety of topics ranging from bridal costumes to the Star-Spangled Banner. The Society has never been more active than of late, and one of the fruits of this tradition was the spectacularly successful exhibition and catalogue under review. Mr. Edgar Heyl is widely known for his expertise in sev- eral fields, and his skills were never put to more effective use than in / Didn't Know That! A chance remark of his to P. W. Filby, director of the Society and genius at putting others to work, led to this intriguing display. Mr. Heyl has applied his own immense energies and learn- ing, with help from a wide-ranging group of specialists, to collect an astounding list of Maryland firsts, many of which turn out to be national or even world firsts as well. The scope of the under- taking is amazingly broad, from 1634 to 1973 covering every imaginable field of endeavor. Whatever one's interest—medicine, law, religion, music, publishing, business, technology, education—when and where it was done first in Maryland is noted. For each of the items de- scribed, a reliable printed source is cited. In the course of preparing the work, several well- known firsts were discovered to be false, and many unsuspected firsts were uncovered. A large and varied display of firsts was held at the Society from September 24 through December 2, 1973. The hundreds of viewers were constantly amused and surprised by both the importance and multiplicity of exhibits. Again and again bemused spectators mumbled to themselves, "I didn't know that!" And your reaction will probably be the same as you learn of the first re- frigerator, balloon ascension, circulating library, American fox hounds, ouija board, automatic traffic signal, synthetic sweetening agent (saccharine), and so on for 176 separate items. This most attractive catalogue, complete with twelve full page illustrations, a brief foreword, intro- duction, a section on legendary firsts, and a detailed index, was printed with distinction by the press of Schneidereith & Sons of Baltimore. / Didn't Know That! was a bright idea whose time came, was seized, and beautifully made manifest in an absorbing exhibition and catalogue. Those who unfortunately missed the exhibition can recapture its spirit with the catalogue, on sale at the Society.

The Star-Spangled Banner. Written and illustrated by Peter Spier. (New York: Doubleday, 1973. Unpaged. $5.95.) is drawn and written especially with the family in view. The coloring is lively and the depictions are in accordance with the story of the battle. There are well chosen comparisons between the Baltimore of 1814 and modern Baltimore. Unhappily, although the story of the battle and its background is well told, the events from the time Key saw the flag flying are taken from the legend, and since this book is intended for family edification, it is a pity that the Maryland Historical Society's Star-Spangled Books (1972) could not have been used so that the young might have the true story. Despite these shortcomings, the book will be pleasing to young and old alike for its illustrations. It includes a poster depicting in full color the History of the American Flag. [P. W. Filby]

Edwin Bennett and the Products of His Baltimore Pottery. By Eugenia Calvert Holland, with catalogue descriptions by D. Glidden. (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1973.

116 Book Notes 11 7

Pp. [iii], 44. $1.50.) Edwin Bennett has been called the "father of the pottery industry in this country." and his company, producing a wide variety of products from porcelain to roofing tile, from whiteware to Rockingham glaze, became the largest manufactory of its kind in the South. As both an industrial pioneer and a consummate craftsman, Bennett well deserves the attention given him by an extensive exhibition of his work at the Maryland Historical Society in the summer of 1973. Eleven cases of representative works were shown, together with many separate items and a twelfth case of sample tools and utensils used in the production process. This brief pamphlet includes an informative biographical sketch of Bennett by Miss Holland. She provides the history of his operations in Baltimore, discussing his personal life, his attempts to improve his pottery, his various formulas for particular glazes or clay bodies, and his general contributions to the pottery industry. D. Glidden helpfully provides careful, detailed descrip- tions of the 132 items exhibited. A five page bibliography and a page illustrating a variety of Bennett pottery marks complete the catalogue. The exhibit was largely based upon the mag- nificent private collection belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Bennett Filbert. Such cooperative exhibitions, graced with such catalogues, are one of the glories of the Maryland Historical Society. Winterthur Portfolio S. Edited by Ian M. G. Quimby. (Charlottesville: Published for The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum by The University Press of Virginia, 1973. Pp. viii, 246, [i]. $10.00.) Those familiar with the great Winterthur Museum near Wilmington, Delaware, will expect this volume to emphasize the artifact as a reference for the investigation and documentation of seventeenth through nineteenth century American culture. Six of the ten articles in the volume do use such non-literary sources as Pennsylvania Fraktur, Shaker furniture, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant ecclesiastical architecture, and the restored Har- monist town at Economy, Pennsylvania, to illustrate the plurality within American religion. The other four articles are based upon more typical written sources to investigate the self- image of the late nineteenth century Protestant minister, the British fund raising successes of Samuel Davies, little-known Shaker attitudes toward childrearing, and the popularity and prestige of William Ellery Channing. Though certainly a disparate collection of articles, their very dissimilarity lends credence to the book's obvious theme of the rich "diversity in American religious life." Quite expectedly the articles seem to this reader to be markedly uneven in qual- ity. Others will no doubt have individual favorites, but the following three appear to me to be the most significant: Mary Lyn Ray's "A Reappraisal of Shaker Furniture and Society," Charles Morse Stoly's "Threshold of the Golden Kingdom: The Village of Economy and Its Restoration," and Edward Deming Andrews and Faith Andrews, "The Shaker Children's Order." The volume is handsomely illustrated, attractively produced, and well-indexed. It will appeal to a wide variety of readers.

Into the Cauldron. By John J. Peterson. (Clinton, Maryland: Clavier House, 1973. Pp. 220. Paper, $1.95.) During one destructive week in early April, 1968, urban rioting, following in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., struck many American cities. After sketching the disruptions in several cities, this book focuses on those National Guardsmen who helped restore order in Baltimore. The result is a simplistic, biased, us-versus-them narrative completely devoid of any attempt to explain why the rioting happened. The National Guard is depicted with extravagant praise, battling against foul-mouthed Negroes on the rampage. Much conversation is included, especially the more profanely descriptive. If you like blood- 118 Maryland Historical Magazine and-guts stories, with the good guys clearly labeled, and plenty of old-fashioned cussing, maybe this book is for you. Perhaps the heavyhanded moralizing will allow the vulgarity to escape being labeled obscene, but this work is not particularly uplifting. Such books, which can only intensify the animosities of both racial groups, serve little purpose.

Historical Statistics of the South. 1790-1970. By Donald B. Dodd and Wynelle S. Dodd. (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1973. Pp. vi, 85. Cloth, $7.75: paper, $3.95.) This brief volume is a compilation of state-level census statistics for sixteen states labeled south- ern, consisting of the eleven former Confederate states plus Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. There are three sections of figures: the first contains general population, agricultural, and manufacturing statistics, in forty-eight categories, for the period 1790 1970; the second lists statistics, in twelve categories, for manufacturing establishments by state, 1899-1963; and the third illustrates population growth, 1900 to 1970, for those southern cities having a population of 50,000 or more in 1950. There are notes identifying the source of each particular item of census information, and an extensive Glossary of Terms identifying such census definitions as extended cities and improved land. In a work contain- ing so many discrete numbers, errors are to be expected. The compilers ask that mistakes be brought to their attention. In case the City of Dallas does not protest, its 1970 population as listed on page 74 is exactly 1,000,000 too large. Not exciting reading, but a useful volume for all libraries.

Perspectives of Empire: Essays presented to Gerald S. Graham. Edited by John E. Flint and Glyndwr Williams. (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1973. Pp. xii, 200. $11.50.) Professor Graham is an eminent Canadian scholar who from 1949 to his retirement in 1970 occupied the Rhodes Chair of Imperial History at King's College, University of London. His students around the world have spread his fame, for he was a great teacher, scholar, and editor. Indeed, the West African History Series, of which he was general editor, quickly became a landmark in the historiography of West Africa. In this festschrift a group of his colleagues and former students, commemorating his seventieth birthday, illustrate the range of Graham's scholarly interests. In addition to a brief appreciation of Professor Graham and a bibliography of his major writ- ings, there are nine substantial essays on different aspects of British imperial history. Although very much an academic book for scholars, the well-informed reader interested in the general question of how small Britain maintained a large empire for several centuries will find this book most thoughtful.

Black New Orleans, 1860-1880. By John W. Blassingame. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Pp. xvii, 301. $9.95.) Every visitor to New Orleans is immediately captivated by its qualities of distinctiveness, and historians have often pointed to its complex, multi-racial past. Blassingame for the first time reconstructs the black community in the Crescent City, beginning with a sharply etched sketch of its antebellum existence and conclud- ing with a provocative discussion of race relations. Those familiar with the author's previous book. The Slave Community, reviewed elsewhere in this Magazine, will expect this work to challenge many earlier studies. And it does, perhaps most dramatically in chapter four where he discusses the surprising viability of black family life. In other chapters Blassingame illumi- nates such topics as black participation in the Civil War; black property-holding and occupa- tions; black educational and religious institutions; social life and problems. He emphasizes that Book Notes 119 race relations in New Orleans—consisting of a surprising degreee of integration and yet per- sistent segregation—were enormously complicated by the presence of large numbers of free blacks and skilled urban slaves before emancipation, as well as by the influence of the Creole population. The text is complemented with almost three dozen contemporary illustrations, an elaborate appendix, detailed notes, a brief essay on sources with a complete bibliography, and an index. Black New Orleans is a well-written, carefully-researched, valuable contribution to black, southern, and urban history.

Index of Marriage Licenses, Prince George's County. Maryland, 1777-1886. By Helen W. Brown. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1973. Pp. 249. $10.00.) was published in 1971 for private circulation and is now reprinted for a wider audience. Based on original manuscripts in the Hall of Records, Annapolis, the book has an alphabetical list of nearly 14,000 names, with dates of marriage licenses. Supplementary information (minister, resi- dence) is also given where stated in the original. With the paucity of Prince George's County genealogical information, this work is welcome. [P. W. Filby]

Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army during the War of the Revolution. 1775-1783. By Francis B. Heitman. Revised by Robert H. Kelby. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1973. Pp. 698. $15.00.) Robert H. Kelby's new and revised edition of Heitman's book was first published in 1932 and it contained 6,000 names not in the original 1914 work. In 1967 the Genealogical Publishing Company reprinted it, and the demand was so great that it has been reissued. This standard reference work contains the service records of 14,000 officers of the Continental Army, including many officers of the Militia and State troops. Full information is given. [P. W. Filby]

Readers interested in d'Alte A. Welch's A Bibliography of American Children's Books Printed Prior to 1821. reviewed in the Summer 1973 issue of this Magazine by Mr. Edgar Heyl, are advised that the publishers have now issued a four-page supplementary "Index to Titles Listed Under Author Without Cross References." Owners of the Welch bibliography may obtain a free copy of this index, intended to be tipped in following the main index, by writing to John B. Hench, Editor of Publications, American Antiquarian Society, 185 Salis- bury Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. NOTES AND QUERIES

Information Relevant to the 37th Annual Maryland House and Garden Pilgrimage for Editors of Periodicals and Travel Writers PURPOSE: Funds raised are used to help restore and preserve historical houses, churches, and gardens throughout Maryland. DESCRIPTION: Tours include counties of the tidewater areas and suburban Baltimore. Large estates, 17th Century manors and town houses, colonial cottages, and both traditional and modern suburban houses offer diversity. Fine antiques in settings of charm and historical interest add to the pleasure of the Pilgrim. Chesapeake Bay Cruise includes a walking tour in a town reminiscent of colonial seaports.

SCHEDULE—1974 April 27—Charles County April 28—Anne Arundel County April 30—Carroll & North Baltimore Counties May 1 —Hagerstown, Washington County May 2 —St. Georges Rd. & North Roland Park (Suburban Baltimore) May 3 —Cecil County May 4 —Talbot County May 5 —Worcester County May 1 1 —Chesapeake Bay Cruise to Oxford on Maryland's Eastern Shore

STORY MATERIAL: Prepared articles, photographs, and maps are available upon request, or writers and photographers may visit prior to lours. For information contact Pilgrimage Headquarters, as above. ADMISSION: Ticket for tours $7.00. Advance copy—Tour Book—$1.00. Cruise tickets, including lunch $15.00 ACCOMMODATIONS: Attractive inns, comfortable hotels and motels, and city and rural restaurants are accessible. Luncheons are served in a local church on most tours.

Significant Event We would like to take the liberty of recording an important local event: the birth of David Christopher Boles. Congratulations are in order for his parents. Professor John B. Boles and Mrs. Nancy G. Boles. Mrs. Boles was formerly Curator of Manu- scripts for the Society and an invaluable asset to the Magazine. Her services to this publication will be sorely missed, but we hope that she will now utilize her talents in the training of a future historian.

120 Notes and Queries 121

SOCIETY HOURS AND HOLIDAYS

The Gallery is open Tuesday through Saturday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Hours for the Library are: Tuesday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Society is CLOSED EVERY MONDAY in addition to the following holidays during 1974:

Tuesday, January 1 New Year's Day Monday, February 18 Washington's Birthday Friday, April 12 Good Friday Monday, May 27 Memorial Day Thursday, July 4 Independence Day Saturday, August 31 Museum open. Library closed Monday, September 2 Labor Day Monday, October 14 Columbus Day Monday, October 28 Veterans Day Thursday, November 21 Thanksgiving Wednesday, December 25 Christmas Day Wednesday, January I, 1975 New Year's Day

Conference on Maryland and Regional History

A conference on local and regional history sponsored by the Maryland Department of General Services will be held June 14 and 15, 1974 at the Hall of Records in Annapolis. The conference will honor Morris L. Radoff's thirty-five year service as Slate Archivist and will focus attention on recent trends in historical research made possible by the Maryland state archives. Funds are available to pay expenses of contributors and for publication of papers presented. Anyone interested in submitting a paper or attending the conference can obtain further details from the conference coordinator, Dr. Lois Green Carr, St. Mary's City Commission, P. O. Box 838, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland 21404.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION {Ac: of August 12. 1970. Seclion )6BS, Tiile J9, United States Code). I. Date of filing; Sept. 28, 1973. 2. Title of Publication: Maryland Historical Magazine. 3. Frequency of Issue: Quarterly, 4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 201 W. Monument St., Baltimore. Md, 21201. 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Busi- ness Offices of the Publishers: 201 W. Monument St.. Baltimore, Md. 21201. 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher. Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: Maryland Historical Society. 201 W, Monument St., Baltimore. Md. 21201: Editor: Dr. Richard R. Duncan. Department of History, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C 20007: Managing Editor: P. W. Filby, 201 W. Monument St.. Baltimore. Md. 21201. 7. Owner: Maryland Historical Society. 201 W. Monument St., Baltimore. Md. 21201. No stock—nonprofit organization, 8. Known Bond- holders. Mortgagees and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds. Mortgages or Other Se- curities: None. 10. The purpose, function and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes have not changed during preceding 12 months. I. Extent and Nature of Circulation: A. Total No. Copies Printed (Quarterly) (Net Press Run): 5,000; B. Paid Circulation: 1. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors and Counter Sales: None; 2. Mail Subscriptions (Member- ships): 3.866; C. Total Paid Circulation; None; D. Free Distribution (Schools and Libraries): 861; E. Total Distribution; 4,727; F. Office Use, Left-over, Unaccounted, Spoiled After Printing; 273; G. Total 5,000.

I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY P. William Filby, Director CONDENSED STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY For The Nine Months Ended June 30, 1973

Revenues: Dues $ 35,727.50 Contributions, legacies and trusts 61,267.02 Investment income from Endowment Fund 140,358.72 Sales and service fees $ 14,770.89 Less: Cost of materials and merchandise 3,086.69 11.684.20 Library service and reproduction fees 3.332.87 Less: Transferred to Fees Fund for special salary costs, (S703.18 3,332.87 being so expended to June 30, 1973) Transfer from Undesignated Library Fund to cover special salary 2,088.80 costs Darnall Museum funds from Darnall Fund principal for equipment 1,161.91 Use of building charged to programs, and other income 1.154.55 Total revenues $253,442.70

Expenditures—Operations: Maritime Museum $ 940.17 Museum and Gallery 28,726.76 Darnall Museum 10,686.39 Library 35,991.96 Manuscript Division 11,314.52 Magazine 19,729.58 History Notes 2,185.35 Building Operations 71,538.48 Administrative And General 90,558.93 $271,672.14 Other Expenditures: Fund Drive costs 279.71 Transfer to Oral History project 5,000.000 5,279.71 Total expenditures $276,951.85

Excess of expenditures over revenues for year—general activities $(23,509.15)

Note: The Society has other activities, supported by federal and state grants and by Special Funds dedi- cated exclusively to such special projects, which are not reflected above. A copy of the detailed report on the overall activities of the Society is available for reference at the Society's offices.

122 A Spirit of Dissension Economics, Politics, and the Revolution in Maryland RONALD HOFFMAN On the eve of the American Revolution, Maryland faced a crisis of alarming dimensions as angry blacks, dissatisfied whites, and pas- sionate loyalists united against the state's revolutionary leaders. Ronald Hoffman explains how the revolutionary movement developed in Maryland and how its leaders maintained order by placing control of vital government institutions in the hands of the upper class. Maryland Bicentennial Studies. $10.00

Maryland and the Empire, 1773 The Antilon-First Citizen Letters edited, with an introduction, by PETER 5. ONUF The letters of Daniel Dulany, Jr. ("Antilon") and Charles Carroll ("First Citizen"), reprinted here in original form, were occasioned by Maryland Governor Robert Eden's proclamation establishing officers' fees, after the legislature had failed to do so. Peter Onuf shows how this debate characterized the constitutional conflict which destroyed the empire within three years: local autonomy protected by a constitution versus ultimate sovereignty of the parliament over the colonies. Maryland Bicentennial Studies. $10.00 of related interest The Politics of Continuity Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870 1EAN H. BAKER "For professor Baker the period of political realignment in Maryland came before the war with the collapse of Know-Nothingism, not in its aftermath. . . . This extraordinarily well-done and well-written book will be essential reading for anyone interested in understanding Maryland politics during that critical period." — North Carolina Historical Review In The Goucher College Series, published for Goucher College $11.00 HI Johns Hopkins The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, Maryland 21218 For nearly 20 years the GENEALOGICAL NOW AVAILABLE PUBLISHING CO. GENEALOGICAL has been actively reprinting RESEARCH IN out-of-print books on MARYLAND: A GUIDE GENEALOGY i By Mary Keysor Meyer LOCAL HISTORY Assistant Librarian and HERALDRY Genealogist Write for free catalogues. 83 pp. We also have a large stock 81/^ x 11 Spiral Bound of books on |4.50* * Maryland resident please BRITISH GENEALOGY add 4% sales tax. GENEALOGICAL THE MARYLAND PUBLISHING CO., INC. HISTORICAL Regional Publishing Company, SOCIETY Affiliate 201 West Monument Street 521-523 ST. PAUL PLACE Baltimore, Maryland 21201 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 TRADITIONAL TONGUE, BROOKS FURNITURE From America s outstanding & COMPMY sources ... in wide open stock selection INSURANCE

Complete interior planning Since 1898 and advisory service in the Williamsburg tradition

FALLON 8c HELLEN 213 ST. PAUL PLACE 11 and 13 W. Mulberry St. Baltimore, Md. 21201 BALTIMORE LExington 9-3345

(TIjlmneY Corner Antique S^op

FINE CQLLECTICN OF ANTIQUE FURNITORE ANTIQUES RESTORED, REFINISHBD, AND REPROXJCED 532 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Md. 21202 Phone: 837-6919 Enrico Liberti, Prop. VVj^X^X^iJ-X^W^i^t^K^-K^-.t^J^t^-K^-V^-S^-K^J l ANTIQUES Oil Paintings & Water Colors FURNITURE Signed Graphics RESTORATION Porcelains since 1899 Lalique Crystal Expert Conservation J. W. BERRY & SON Correct Training 222 West Read Street Baltimore Saratoga 7-4687 THE PURNELL Consultants GALLERIES by Appointment to The Society 407 North Charles Street §

r *C^>C^»'^^*-^-K^^<^r.tJ^C^K^.C^X^l^ >t^-)U^

COLLECTORS' AUCTIONS CATALOG SALES

of fine books, antiques, art works, letters & docu- ments, antique weapons. Receive fair prices through competitive bidding. Appraisals, judicial sales, estate sales conducted for individuals, executors and attorneys. Write for information concerning our catalog sub- scriptions, or phone (301) 728-7040 HARRIS AUCTION GALLERIES 873-875 N. HOWARD STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

MEMBER: APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AUCTIONEERS ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND What do you know about... The Carrolls of Carrollton The Griffiths of ancient lineage A Signer of the Declaration of Independence Descendants of Welsh kings and vigorous and leader in many fields leaders in the colony since 1675 The Dorseys of Hockley-in-the-Hole The Howards of noble ancestry The county bears the name of this distin- The Howard County ancestors of President guished, aristocratic family Abraham Lincoln The Igleharts, distinguished in law The Ellicotts, founders of Ellicott and medicine City trace their Saxon lineage back to the Second Builders, manufacturers, planters, teachers, Crusade surveyor of Washington The Ridgelys of great distinction One of the most aristocratic and active fami- The Clarks of Clarksville lies in the colony Planters, importers, soldiers, administrators The Worthingtons of Worthington The Greenberrys of Whitehall Valley Leader in civil and military affairs. Governor In the colony since 1664, this family was active of Maryland 1692 and prominent in all its affairs —and several score other Maryland families who distinguished themselves in Howard County history

Origin and History of Howard County

383 pages, richly illustrated; 29 coats-of-arms of distinguished families in full color; 54 reviews of prominent families and 32 photographs of their resi- dences plus an ample bibliography and an extensive index.

On sale direct from the author, Mr. Charles Francis Stein, 17 Midvale Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21210 @ $19.50 per copy, shipped postpaid. Where applicable 4% sales tax should be added.

^^^o^^c^^t^-.^^^^^c^i^^.^^(v5ot^^^^^^^^^^^^^'-^^t^^v^^^^^^6^^^v5^(-^

THE WORK OF ADALBERT JOHANN VOLCK, 1828-1912, WHO CHOSE FOR HIS NAME THE ANAGRAM V. BLADA. By GEORGE McC. ANDERSON Privately printed, Baltimore, 1970. SI0.00 plus 4% sales tax 40c postage where applicable

AVAILABLE AT THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS OF THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Compiled by Avril J. M. Pedley published in 1968

1,724 manuscript collections of over 1,000,000 items, representing manu- scripts acquired from 1844 to 1968, are described in 390 pages, including a detailed index.

The documents listed analytically in this volume provide a rich oppor- tunity for research in all areas of Maryland and often the nation's history. The business, economic, family, local, military, political, religious, and social history of Maryland are covered extensively. Although every significant era and topic of both Maryland and National history are represented in the manuscript holdings of the Maryland Historical Society, the collection is especially strong for the colonial and antebellum periods. The Manuscript Collections of the Maryland Historical Society is a necessary tool in every reference library.

Price $15 (plus |.60 tax for Maryland residents) and $.50 postage and handling.

Please address orders to: The Maryland Historical Society 201 West Monument Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING PHOTOGRAPHY Since 1878 HUGHES CO. Copy and Restoration Work a Specialty. C. GAITHER SCOTT Black and White or color. 115 E. 25th Street Phone: 889-5540 Baltimore, Md. 21218 FAMILY COAT OF ARMS A Symbol Of Your Family's Heritage Prom The Proud Past Handpainted In Oils In Full Heraldic Colors —Size 11% X 141/2 —$18.00 Research When Necessary ANNA DORSEY UNDER PINES OF HOCKLEY [66 Defense Highway Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Phone: 263-3384 PLUMBING — HEATING—AIR CONDITIONING

M. NELSON BARNES & SONS, INC. Established 1909 Phone: 666-9330 117 Church Lane, Cockeysville 21030

IF your children do not want the family heirlooms, please let us help you. We have been finding good homes for handsome antiques for 75 years, and we still do.

J. W. Berry & Son—Baltimore—SAratoga 7-4687

GARAMOND/PRIDEMARK PRESS, INC. 714 E, PRATT ST, -+ BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 "*• TEL: AREA CODE 301 727-7070 it WASHINGTON TEL: 393-5676 Opportunitu

As YOU MAY KNOW, THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL -L m_ SOCIETY is a private organization dependent upon dues, contributions, and a limited endowment for its operation. Because of increased costs due to the need for additional staff, programs, and maintenance of the building, the Society is urgently in need of increased funding. For the five years, 1971/2 through 1975/6, the Jacob and Annita France Foundation has generously offered to match to the sum of $30,000 annually any funds the Society may raise. This munificent matching grant provides members and friends with a special opportunity to aid the Society. It is hoped that members will make an annual contribution and perhaps voluntarily increase their dues category. OR:

YOU MAY WISH TO ESTABLISH FOR THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY a separate memorial fund, large or small, the increase from which may be either for a special purpose or to pay operating expenses. Many historical societies derive major portions of their income from bequests—both large and small—from their members and friends. Any officer or the Director of the Society will gladly discuss this matter with you, if you desire.

& $ $

7776 form of bequest should read: "I give and bequeath to the Maryland Historical Society the sum of Dollars."

Will you give these thoughts your earnest consideration?